Theorizing together

ABSTRACTThe article outlines ideas for a methodology of collaborative theorizing. The first part introduces our understanding of theorizing as a craft that provides all scholars in the social sciences and humanities – not just self-described theorists – with the ability to develop their thinking in the course of the research process and draws attention to everyday research practices that are usually not covered by the literature on qualitative and quantitative research methods. ‘Theorizing together,’ as part of this craft, can be understood as a synergetic mode of theory-making geared to harnessing the advantages of everyday collaboration. The second part makes the case for a methodology of theorizing together built on personal experiences. First, we review our own research on rankings to show how collaborative practices allowed us to gain novel insights into an object of study, which would not have been possible had we done our research separately. Then, we offer preliminary ideas for a methodology. Specifically, we identify a number of practices involved in theorizing together and discuss various challenges and conditions associated with it. Our main goal is to inspire others to share their experience with collaborative work and, in the spirit of theorizing together, to further develop this mode of collective inquiry.KEYWORDS: Theorizingpractices of theorizingcollaborationmethodologyrankingshistorical sociologyorganizations AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank Simon Hecke, Johannes Ratte, Silke Engels, Helga Volkening, Katharina Braunsmann, Linda Heiken, Clelia Minnetian, Stefan Wilbers, Stella Medellias, Anna Lena Grüner, Karina Korneli, Antonia Stüwe, Ellen Hegewaldt, Can David Tobias, Elisabeth Strietzel, Vivian Vollbrecht and Jasmin Weissberg for participating in our collaboration through the years and making it such a fun and productive experience. We also thank the German Research Foundation (DFG) for funding the research projects that made parts of this collaboration possible. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to Michael Guggenheim and Distinktion’s two anonyomous reviewers, who have helped us improve the article with their comments on an earlier version.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 We ought to mention that the productivity of our collaboration was limited by the fact that most members joined the team on temporary contracts. These employment conditions, common in the German university system, are clearly not conducive to establishing a stable team and thus, by implication, to theorizing together.2 This changed considerably during the COVID 19-pandemic, when, at times, face-to-face interaction was impossible or strongly discouraged. We used Zoom meetings as some kind of substitute but experienced them as more tiring and less fun.3 This includes an alert that announces every addition to the database in real time (if this is more ‘togetherness’ than you can take: this function can be turned off).Additional informationNotes on contributorsTobias WerronTobias Werron is a Professor of Sociological Theory at the University of Bielefeld, Germany. His work focuses on practices of theorizing, historical sociology, globalization, nationalism, and competition.Jelena BrankovicJelena Brankovic is a postdoctoral researcher at the Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University. Her current research focuses on the institutionalization of rankings and other forms of comparison within and across sectors, with a particular attention to higher education and transnational governance.Leopold RingelLeopold Ringel is a lecturer at the Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University. His qualitative research focuses on globalization, organizations, quantification, rankings, and transparency.