IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v19y2014i3p136-146.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Materiality of Method: The Case of the Mass Observation Archive

Author

Listed:
  • Liz Moor
  • Emma Uprichard

Abstract

The Mass Observation Archive presents numerous methodological issues for social researchers. The data are idiosyncratic, difficult to analyze, and the sample design is nonsystematic. Such issues seriously challenge conventional social research protocols. This article highlights a further characteristic of the archive: its unwieldy materiality. Focusing on the sensory experiences of the archive and its particular type of data, the article shows how the experience of getting ‘dirty with data’ plays a real and dynamic part of conducting Mass Observation research. Building on these observations, and drawing on two recent projects that have used the Archive, we reflect on the extent to which these issues are genuinely methodologically problematic, and how far the materiality of method and the sensuousness of data play a part in other research sites and methodological approaches too. In doing so, we emphasize the physical and logistical practicalities involved in engaging with all kinds of data, and highlight the opportunities as well as the constraints that these pose. We draw attention to the sensuous ‘cues’ and ‘hints’ offered by the Archive's materiality, and explore different ways of responding to these and their likely implications for the type and status of outputs produced. Finally, we consider the implications of our discussion for possible future attempts to digitize the contents of the Archive.

Suggested Citation

  • Liz Moor & Emma Uprichard, 2014. "The Materiality of Method: The Case of the Mass Observation Archive," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 19(3), pages 136-146, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:19:y:2014:i:3:p:136-146
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.3379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.3379
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.3379?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarah Nettleton & Emma Uprichard, 2011. "‘A Slice of Life’: Food Narratives and Menus from Mass-Observers in 1982 and 1945," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 16(2), pages 99-107, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abigail Knight & Julia Brannen & Rebecca O'connell, 2015. "Using Narrative Sources from the Mass Observation Archive to Study Everyday Food and Families in Hard Times: Food Practices in England during 1950," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 20(1), pages 29-72, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abigail Knight & Julia Brannen & Rebecca O'connell, 2015. "Using Narrative Sources from the Mass Observation Archive to Study Everyday Food and Families in Hard Times: Food Practices in England during 1950," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 20(1), pages 29-72, February.
    2. Viktoria Wallin & Ida Carlander & Per‐Olof Sandman & Britt‐Marie Ternestedt & Cecilia Håkanson, 2014. "Maintaining ordinariness around food: partners’ experiences of everyday life with a dying person," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(19-20), pages 2748-2756, October.
    3. Dana Wilson-Kovacs, 2014. "‘Clearly Necessary’, ‘Wonderful’ and ‘Engrossing’? Mass Observation Correspondents Discuss Forensic Technologies," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 19(3), pages 161-176, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:19:y:2014:i:3:p:136-146. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.