5/ 📚 This paper aims to spark urgent discussion about methods in STS—especially for sociotechnical futures.
Interested in performativity, imaginaries & methodological rigor? Read & engage!👇

t.co/fgXLSPpHJF

4/ 💡 We offer practical strategies to strengthen empirical work on the future:
✅ Data triangulation
✅ Comparative designs
✅ Clear inference practices
✅ Better interview structure

3/ 🧰 We designed an appraisal tool for qualitative studies, grounded in recent sociological debates.
It helps diagnose methodological gaps and provides actionable recommendations.

2/ 🧪 From a universe of 1,400+ publications, we reviewed 139 empirical STS articles on the future.
We found:
⚠️ Poor methodological reporting
⚠️ Unjustified inferences
⚠️ Lack of triangulation or comparative design

I’m deeply grateful to everyone who has supported me during my academic journey—especially PUC Sociology Institute, Beltrán Undurraga, Sebastián Ureta, Javiera Reyes, and Eduardo Undurraga, who have taught me how to be a good social scientist

Most definetly. While there are some general features underlying CR, many researchers interpret it differently and even have different views about substantive topics. For e.g., Elder-Vass and Archer's view (also an article) on culture. I am also more skeptic about CR and lean more towards pragmatism

Hi John, IMO it depends on what you want to get at. If you want a general and easy introduction to CR I think our book is the way to go. If you are thinking about specifics, say how mechanisms express in actual research practices, I think it is better to look at the specialized literature (not CR)

For those interested in science and technology studies, philosophy of science, or sociological theory, I hope this paper offers a new lens on how we can think about success, realism, and scientific practice. Check it out here: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

By focusing on these chains of reference, we shift the debate towards a practice-based argument for realism, one that can bridge differences in epistemological commitments across disciplines and within sociological positions. (5/6)

Rather than getting stuck in ontological debates, I propose that realism should be first grounded in the everyday practices that scientists—both social and natural—use to generate success. It’s about how we construct knowledge and instruments, not just abstract theories! (4/6)

In my paper, I revisit Ian Hacking's interventionist argument with a Latourian twist, suggesting that a common thread runs across all sciences: the construction of "chains of reference." These practical epistemic activities link theories with real-world phenomena. (3/6)

Over the past few decades, debates on the scientific status of the social sciences have intensified. Mechanistic, perspectivist, and interpretivist approaches have each offered their own critiques and defenses of realism. But where does that leave us? (2/6)