January 15, 2026 | 11 minute read
That’s Interesting! Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology
by Murray S. Davis
Text Exploration
In this text, the author argues that most social science work is boring, and as a result, does not have the impact an author wants (either in terms of theory adoption or growth of professional standing). There are a variety of ways to make a theory interesting, and the author outlines, with examples, twelve categories of what make interesting arguments (an “index of the interesting.”)
The author asserts that, while it’s assumed that a theorist is great because their theories are true, they are actually great because their theories are interesting. Interesting is about engaging the attention of an audience, which requires understanding where their attention was before being engaged. This is an “old truth” and a new theory will only be noticed when it rejects that old truth: only if it “denies the truth of some part of their routinely held assumption-ground.”
The author describes the development of an interesting index, and notes that each approach in the index involves “radical distinction between seeming and being, between the subject of phenomenology and the subject of ontology.”
The index of the interesting includes twelve characterizations. Each operates with a parallel construct (what is stated below is true in opposite as well).
- Organization refers to framing something that seems disorganized as actually organized. An interesting organizing phenomenon is one that seems too complex to be ordered.
- Composition refers to showing that what seems to be assorted and separate phenomena are actually a single element.
- Abstraction requires showing that what seems to be an individual activity is actually a holistic activity.
- Generalization shifts what is a local phenomenon to a general phenomenon.
- Stabilization requires framing what seems to be stable and unchanging as something that is unstable.
- Function describes that what is viewed as ineffective as a means for the attainment of an end is actually something that functions effectively.
- Evaluation requires showing what seem to be bad is actually good. This can be achieved by changing the rating scale (or indicator) of goodness, or the moral measure that is used to compare something against. For example, “if a social theorist wishes to counter his audience’s appraisal of American Society as great or as awful, he need merely to compare it to… Nazi Germany.”
- Co-relation involves showing that things that seem unrelated are actually correlated.
- Co-existence involves showing that what seems to be things that can exist together actually cannot exist together.
- Co-variation requires reframing that something appearing as a positive co-variation between phenomena is actually a negative one.
- Opposition demands showing that what seems to be similar and nearly identical is actually opposite; Marshall McLuhan’s representation of radio and television as opposites is used as an example.
- Causation is about showing that what seems to be independent is actually dependent (and “caused by”).
The author then describes that non-interesting theories generally involve telling an audience something they already know; something that is obvious. Mediocrity also emerges when researchers take scientific procedures too literally; they follow “good practice” instead of leveraging a “creative spark.”
Theorists often fail to realize the distinction between “laymen” and “experts,” and don’t realize that laymen often already know and understand, as common sense or conventional wisdom, much of what an expert might discover or try to prove. This, then, isn’t found interesting by that larger group. To address this, a theorist can “raise the level of abstraction” of ideas, to where they are surprising (and hold to one of the above principles) to both groups. Academics may find this offensive, as it requires eliminating the detail that they often feel are critical to understanding the idea in the first place.
The author concludes that, to be effective in making a theory interesting on a broad scale, a researcher needs to not only be familiar with the data, but also with the audience they are communicating with, particularly focusing on what that audience assumes to be true about a subject.
The author notes that this paper, and the scale itself, is actually not interesting, yet is still useful.
This was a recommendation from Paul, primarily in response to the draft paper I have written about my faculty research study. He clearly found it uninteresting, and he is right. I think it is uninteresting for two reasons. First, with one exception, the findings are not particularly surprising, either to the primary audience (design educators) or to the general public. Next, the findings are not presented in any broader sense; I have described what I found, but not really interpreted or interrogated the results. As described in the text, I followed strong practice for research, and the output is a strong research paper that is by and large uninteresting.
As I reflect on this, it’s interesting (….) that my academic writing is very different than what I have written more publicly in the past, when I’m aware of a more practitioner-focused audience. I have never been shy about articulating my opinions and observations about design in practice, and I recognize that those opinions and observations are sometimes controversial. For some reason, I feel that isn’t “allowed” or “appropriate” in more scholarly work, and this is sort of running counter to that assumption. There is material in the faculty research study that is surprising, challenging, and interesting, but for some reason I did not feel confident pushing the work that far.
The primary controversial or unexpected conclusion I might draw from the research is that we’ve largely overindexed on helping students feel emotionally safe, or worrying about their life context, or considering the way they show up at school, or focusing on group work and collaboration, or teaching them to be cordial in their critique, at the expense of actually teaching them to be designers. I think this is controversial to say out loud, but I got a lot of signals from faculty that it’s what they are thinking and feeling—but seem ashamed, or worried, to actually say out loud. It makes sense: no one wants to say “I don’t care how you are feeling.”
As a thought exercise, I’m going to try to push the research through a sieve of the Index of Interesting that Davis presents, recognizing that the exercise is following the same overly pragmatic and uninterestingness that I’m trying to avoid. Whatever.
As a reference, my preliminary (not-interesting) findings from the study are:
- Students need to make things. Making artifacts is one of the most defining qualities of a studio, as compared to a more traditional form of teaching and learning.
- Students need to work publicly in an open environment. Showing in-progress work to other students offers a chance for collaborative learning and comparative benchmarking.
- A consistent, small cohort is fundamental to establishing trust. Studio requires a level of intimacy that is only made possible in a small group, over a long period of time.
- Students need to develop a sense of ownership and control over the space. A space is simply a room; students need to feel comfortable making that space into a place where design work can be done effectively.
- Students require dedicated workspaces. During a design project, students need to refer to their prior iterations, and so they need to leave their work in a permanent place.
- Students need to engage with faculty, continually. Studio requires intimate one-on-one time with faculty, who teach by showing things rather than discussing things.
Organization: what seems to be disorganized phenomenon is in reality structured phenomenon (or the opposite).
My primary audience of design educators feel that studio is structured around 50+ principles; in fact, it’s completely ad-hoc, even when educators try to leverage those attributes.
A general audience of laypeople view higher education as a thoughtful, structured, purposeful system; in fact, it’s a total mess and a complete crap-shoot.
Composition: what seems to be assorted heterogenous phenomena are in-reality composed of a single element (or the opposite).
My primary audience of design educators feel that design education is constituted of different attributes (like critique, small class size, skill acquisition, etc). Actually, design education is only about trust.
A general audience of laypeople feel that students need to learn lots of different topics and take lots of different classes. Actually… I don’t know about this one.
Abstraction: What seems to be an individual phenomenon is in reality a holistic phenomenon (or the opposite).
My primary audience of design educators feel that design is a skill that needs to be fostered in one student, but actually, industry only needs students to participate in shared work.
A general audience of laypeople feel that higher education is for fostering individual student growth, but actually, it’s about preparing students to contribute to participating in the machine of corporations.
Generalization: What seems to be a local phenomenon is in reality a general phenomenon (or the opposite).
My primary audience of design educators view critique as fundamental and unique to design. In fact, it is a required part of all education.
A general audience of laypeople understand art to be subjective, and graded as such; in fact, all educational work is subjective and should be graded as such (through critique).
Stabilization: What seems to be a stable and unchanging phenomenon is in reality an unstable and changing phenomenon (or the opposite).
My primary audience of design educators view the current generation of students as broken, overly anxious, and scared to be seen. In fact, all generations have always been broken, overly anxious, and scared to be seen.
A general audience of laypeople view the current generation of students as broken, overly anxious, and scared to be seen. In fact, all generations have been broken, overly anxious, and scared to be seen.
This one feels interesting because they line up, and because I believe that the “anxiety generation” is not new, it’s only more visible. I don’t know if it’s really interesting.
Function: What seems to be a phenomenon that functions ineffectively as a means for the attainment of an end is in reality a phenomenon that functions effectively (or the opposite).
My primary audience of design educators feel that institutions are removing their physical space and that makes education ineffective; in fact, institutions no longer exist for education, and so large classes are extremely effective.
A general audience of laypeople feel that institutions… don’t care?
Evaluation: What seems to be a bad phenomenon is in reality a good phenomenon (or the opposite).
My primary audience of design educators feel that the need for students to hide is indicative of a lack of maturity, and negatively impacts their learning. Actually, it’s…
A general audience of laypeople… are unaware that students are hiding at school?
I’m not sure about this one. There’s something pretty important about the way nearly all faculty called out students’ need to hide, and the negative impact of it on their education. I naturally agree, so maybe that’s a sign that I need to check that?
Co-relation: What seems to be unrelated (independent) phenomena are in reality correlated (interdependent) phenomena (or the opposite).
My primary audience of design educators....
A general audience of laypeople…
This, and the next few, are all in the section “The relations among multiple phenomena.” The items in this section feel the most important-ish, and I don’t have a lot, or maybe anything? to say here, so that’s clearly a place to push on.
Co-existence: What seem to be phenomena which can exist together are in reality phenomena which cannot exist together (or the opposite).
My primary audience of design educators believe that design can be taught in universities. It can’t, because of all of the findings above.
A general audience of laypeople believe that anything can be taught in universities. It can’t, because of all of the findings above.
The general audience part here is probably too aggressive a point to make. The primary audience point is actually something I agree with pretty strongly, though.
Co-variation: What seems to be a positive co-variation between phenomena is in reality a negative co-variation between phenomena (or the opposite).
I don’t understand this, and the author wrote the least about this. I will skip it.
Opposition: What seems to be similar (nearly identical) phenomena are in reality opposite phenomena (or the opposite).
My primary audience of design educators believe that design is about learning to make things, but in reality it’s about learning to not make things.
A general audience of laypeople believe that…. Eh.
Causation: What seems to be an independent phenomenon in a causal relation is in realty the dependent phenomenon (or the opposite).
My primary audience of design educators believe…
A general audience of laypeople…
I don’t have a lot here. Maybe I ran out of steam on these. Maybe I assigned myself a dumb exercise. Maybe the work isn’t interesting. …