Workshop: Madness in Method

Computation is more than a tool—it is a way of thinking. Or is it? Join us for a short-day workshop to meet digital researchers across the HASS disciplines, to critique the concepts of ‘digital’ and ‘method’, and to establish a set of principles for the adoption of digital methods. The workshop features provocative keynotes, an interactive data session, lightning talks, structured interaction and will culminate in the collective authorship of 10 Theses on Method.

Where: The Digital Lab, Arts West, University of Melbourne

When: Wednesday, September the 10th, 10AM-4PM

Register via Humanitix

Methods and Madness

Hamlet
I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is
southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.

What makes methods ‘mad’? In the Humanities and Social Sciences, ‘method’ has usually been a bulwark of sanity. Methods ensure that objects exist. When scholars use the proper methods, they can ensure that their research is ‘objective’, a key epistemic virtue in the Humanities since the 1800s (Daston 2014). Methods achieve objectivity in the same way recipes achieve dishes. A good recipe always cooks the same cake, no matter the cook. Since the cake doesn’t depend on the cook, we can agree that the cake is an independent object, that does not rely on the intervention of a particular human subject. Like recipes, research methods guarantee the independence of the objects of research. Some Humanists and Social Scientists have embraced methodical objectivity, especially as computation has enabled more complex and sophisticated methods in all branches of research. Others have rejected methodical objectivity as an improper encroachment of positivism into humanistic learning.

This workshop offers a third approach, inspired by the ‘counter-methods’ of Paul Feyerabend (1975), the ‘assemblage methods’ of John Law (2004), the ‘pataphysical’ methods of Stephen Ramsay (2011), the ‘interface methods’ of Noortje Marres and Carolin Geerlitz (2016), and the creative works of algorithmic artists from Laurie Spiegel to Refik Anadol. Sure, methods might create objects—but do they always have to create the same, sane ones? How might digital methods help us to reimagine, reshape or recreate the world?

Programme

10:00 | Welcome to the Past

Michael Falk and Niles Zhao introduce the project, and provide an historical overview of digital methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences, using the project corpus.

10:45 | Meet the Method

‘Speed dating’ activity, to discover the mad methods of other workshop attendees. Structured. Fun. Totally professional.

11:30 | Method and Materiality

Kath Bode (ANU) presents her critical study of the materiality of digital methods.

12:30 | Lunch

Uncatered, sorry!

01:30 | Lightning Talks

Presenters have 7 minutes + 1 slide to present a digital method, and explain how it has impacted their discipline.

Philip Pond (Media Studies / TBC)

Jasmin Pfefferkorn (Museum Studies / Digital Walkthrough)

Finn Morgan (Literary Studies / Heuristics)

Mitch Goodwin (Art / Style Parameters)

Kim Doyle (Finance Studies / AI)

Nat Cutter (History / LLMs)

02:30 | Mapping as Method

Luca Scholz (Manchester) presents his work in the history of spatial humanities.

03:30 | Theses on Method

Collective writing and reflection session.

04:00 | Goodbye!

References

Daston, Lorraine. 2014. “Objectivity and Impartiality: Epistemic Virtues in the Humanities.” In The Making of the Humanities, edited by Rens Bod, Thijs Weststeijn, and Jaap Maat, 3:27–42. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048518449-002.
Feyerabend, Paul. 1975. Against Method. London; New York: New Left Books.
Law, John. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London, UNITED KINGDOM: Taylor & Francis Group. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=200755.
Marres, Noortje, and Carolin Gerlitz. 2016. “Interface Methods: Renegotiating Relations Between Digital Social Research, STS and Sociology.” The Sociological Review 64 (1): 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12314.
Ramsay, Stephen. 2011. Reading Machines: Towards an Algorithmic Criticism. Urbana, Chicago; Springfield: University of Illinois Press.