Sketch+4+(LMB)+Habits,+Talents,+Neuroses


 * • Do you have more trouble articulating your frame (social theoretical questions) or object? **

Sometimes the one, sometimes the other. As of until recently it was the latter: I knew the general interest for inquiry – and was recently able to pin it down more and more. Circling in to the more and more concrete. Simultaneously I often get fascinated by a large variety of objects that make it hard to decide for the social theoretical questions (thus mostly a forth and back).

See the above, being fascinated by variety, and by the different aspects to similar questions that varying objects/projects pose. It is a project-hopping in terms of object (and the alterations of the frame that this brings with it in its consequence). There is yet a more general broad threat to this project hopping – I see the hopping thus also as sub-project in a larger overarching project.
 * • Do you tend to project-hop or to stick to a project, and what explains this? **


 * • Do you tend to be more interested in internal dynamics, or external determinations? In the terms laid out by Keller, do you tend to focus so intently on the object of your concern that context falls away (i.e. are you obsessive compulsive, rather than paranoid)? Is your desire is to name, specify and control your object? Is your desire is for figure, its ground your annoyance? Or are you paranoid, context being your focus and obsession? All is signal. Only begrudgingly will you admit that something is noise, outside the scope of your project? Figure is hard to come by. Its ground has captured your attention. **

I guess I air strongly on the side of the figure. I think I am generally good in embedding my research endeavors into larger socio-theoretical questions, as well as into the context of an object of study, particularly so a priori. Yet once I am circeling in more directly onto the object I easily get lost in the figure, loosing perspective on the grounds. Only after I retract myself from the field again, and even then it takes quite some time of analytical work, I manage to bring in wider perspectives (over which I then easily loos the figure). Thus a constant forth and back is necessary for me, I guess. Grounded theory has also made some good arguments at times, I guess.

Two different things. The normal, I agree here with Harding, is very often highly problematic. Starting with the unusual can be an advantage – thus me being allured to DSTS. Always was interested in the deviant, now that I come to think of it – it brought me into sociology. [The normal and the pathological is a great book! Also to situate myself]
 * • What do you do with unusual or counter examples? Are you drawn to “the deviant,” or rather repulsed by it? **

Definitely the former. I think I have to reflect this more strongly in my work.
 * • Do you tend to over-impose logics on the world, or to resist the construction of coherent narratives? **

Connected to what I said in the question before. Yet, way more balanced, I think: I probably stay so close to my object (see further above on figure and ground) also to re-emphasize the specificity and situatedness of my study.
 * • Do you tend to over-generalize, or to hold back from overarching argument? **

Different interpretations are always the more exciting texts to me (learn most about myself and my own arguments, get new perspectives, or get to exercise (in terms of training) critique/deconstruction of arguments)
 * • Do you like to read interpretations different than your own, or do you tend to feel scooped or intimidated by them? **

This extremely depends on context. I honestly could not say at this point. Would air on the second side though.
 * • Do you tend to change an argument as you flesh it out, or do you tend to make the argument work, no matter what? **

A combination of both that results in "alluring to" instead of explicitly naming it; I like to cultivate that in ways that still give reverence in explicit ways, which requires precise language, a better-strategized construction of the overall writing structure, and a stronger utilization of efficient footnotes. Working on that ;)
 * • Do you tend to think in terms of “this is kind of like” (metaphorically)? Do you hold to examples that “say it all,” leveraging metonymic thinking? **

I like the ways it makes me reflect upon what I do, and binaries can be highly productive in this sense, as they usually don't fit and force you to reflect on what side you rather air – I think we (as of us, the people... i know...) generally perceive binaries much more in spectrums than quantitative sociology (the poorly constructed one) likes it.
 * • Do you like gaming understanding in this way? Does it frustrate you that your answers often don’t fit easily on either side of the binaries set up by the questions? (Jakobson suggests that over attachment to a simple binary scheme is a “continuity disorder.”) **