We do not have the space here to explore in detail what this might involve, but we see it as drawing on the arguments of writers such as Pickstone (2002), Latour (2005), and Abbott (2000), who argue – for different reasons – that we abandon a sole focus on causality (which we are very bad at) and analysis and embrace instead an interest in description and classification (see, for example, the exemplary Bowker and Star, 1999). If we see the power of contemporary social knowledge as lying in its abilities to conduct minute description, we can better situate our concerns as exposing these descriptions, challenging them, and presenting our own descriptions. In such a process we need a radical mixture of methods coupled with renewed critical reflection. Such a call for a descriptive sociology does not involve sole reliance on narrative but seeks to link narrative, numbers, and images in ways that engage with, and critique, the
kinds of routine transactional analyses that now proliferate. Rather than seeking refuge in our own, internal debates, this involves casting our net wide, critically engaging with the extensive data sources which now exist, and not least,
campaigning for access to such data where they are currently private. Through this means, we can renew the critical project of sociology by challenging current practices in the collection, use, and deployment of social data. (Savage & Burrows)
ANOTHER IDEA: How to EV manufacturers describe the Li mining socio-environmental problems to stakeholders and challenge it. Science is telling us: use EVs. Once it told us smoking was fine. (Giddens) fact is: we do not undestandi it well.
Maybe I will just explore/describe the lithium life to check relations between EV and socio-environmental implications of Lithium mining.
