What do you do with the word(s) of your participants? How are these translated into the words of “research” and what happens in that transition?
While Latour’s work is arguably marked by pithy one-liners enmeshed in complex dense language and obscure terms one of his suggestions is that:
The painful lesson we must learn is exactly the opposite of what is still being taught all over the world under the name of a ‘social explanation’, namely we must not substitute a surprising but precise expression that is the well-known repertoire of the social which is supposed to be hidden behind it. We have to resist pretending that actors have only a language while the analyst possesses the meta- language in which the first is ‘embedded’. (Latour, 1995, p49)
So if we were to try and preserve the words and register of research participants how could or should this be done? How do you do that? Or must we all “Learn to Write Badly” in order to succeed at the social sciences as Michael Billig suggests? (ch1 available from https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream2134/153194Learn%20to%20write%20badly%20Chapter%20One.pdf
How could we approach research and writing it up differently?