Situational maps

Situational maps are a qualitative research tool often used in grounded theory and situational analysis, particularly associated with the work of sociologist Adele Clarke. These maps help researchers explore complex, dynamic social phenomena by visualizing relationships among various elements within a given situation. They serve as a flexible framework for analyzing how different actors, non-human elements, discourses, and power relations interact in specific contexts. This approach is particularly relevant for interdisciplinary fields such as Techno-Anthropology, where the socio-technical relationships between humans and technologies are of central importance.

Clarke developed situational maps to address some of the limitations of traditional grounded theory, which she found insufficiently attentive to the complexities of social worlds, actors, and the material elements shaping a given situation. Situational maps provide a methodological tool to reflect the messy realities researchers encounter, acknowledging the interactions between human and non-human actors, social structures, and discourses.

Different Types of Situational Maps

1. Messy Situational Maps
   The messy situational map is an initial tool that lays out all the potentially relevant human, non-human, material, and discursive elements in the situation under investigation. It’s an open-ended process designed to capture the complexities and messiness of real-life scenarios. In this step, you aim for inclusiveness, rather than organization, to avoid premature categorization.
   Purpose:

   • To develop an exhaustive list of all elements, including the various actors (both human and non-human), structures, discourses, institutions, symbols, and other relevant components.

   • Emphasizes that every element matters at this stage, allowing the researcher to take a broad, exploratory approach.

Example:
When studying a socio-technical interaction such as the introduction of a new health app, the messy situational map might include: patients, doctors, app developers, regulatory bodies, the app itself, data privacy concerns, digital infrastructure, public discourse on digital health, etc.

2. Ordered Situational Maps
   Once the messy map is constructed, it is refined into an ordered situational map by organizing the elements into categories. This process involves clustering the items into groups, such as individual human actors, collective actors, technological artifacts, discourses, and spatial or temporal dimensions. While the messy map is non-hierarchical, the ordered map attempts to make sense of the situation by grouping like elements.
   Purpose:

   • To organize the components of the messy map systematically.

   • To provide a clearer understanding of how different elements interact and relate to one another.

Example:
In the health app scenario, you might categorize elements as “individual human actors” (patients, doctors, developers), “non-human elements” (app, data storage, algorithms), and “discourses” (privacy, health optimization, medical ethics).

3. Relational Maps
   These maps build upon the ordered situational maps by focusing on the relationships between the different elements in the situation. The aim is to visualize connections, conflicts, dependencies, and power dynamics between the various components. This stage encourages a critical examination of the interactions between actors and the material world, including how social structures shape technological practices and how technologies, in turn, shape social relations.
   Purpose:

   • To explore how different actors and elements are connected.

   • To analyze the power dynamics and dependencies in the socio-technical context.

Example:
In the case of the health app, a relational map might explore how patients are dependent on the app for managing health data, how doctors rely on the app for real-time patient monitoring, and how the app developers’ decisions around user interface design affect both patients and doctors. It could also consider the power dynamics between regulatory bodies and the app developers or how patient data is commodified by private companies.

4. Social Worlds/Arenas Maps
   Social worlds/arenas maps delve into the collective actors and the larger social contexts or “arenas” in which they operate. Social worlds are made up of multiple collective actors (e.g., institutions, organizations, or communities), while arenas are broader social spaces where these actors interact. This mapping technique emphasizes the multiplicity of perspectives and positions within the situation, revealing different viewpoints, conflicts, and negotiations of meaning.
   Purpose:

   • To explore the broader social groups (social worlds) involved in the situation and how they interact within particular social arenas.

   • To map out the power struggles, negotiations, and competing agendas of different groups.

Example:
For the health app, the social worlds might include the medical profession, the tech industry, governmental health authorities, and patient advocacy groups. The arenas could be healthcare policy debates, technological development forums, or public health initiatives. This map helps highlight the conflicts, alliances, and co-evolution of these worlds.

5. Project Maps
   Project maps are a more pragmatic tool that focuses on particular projects or initiatives within the larger situation. These maps center on specific action-oriented processes, goals, and stakeholders involved in a particular project. They are often used when researchers are looking to analyze particular interventions or programs and want to focus on the specific actors, outcomes, and timelines.
   Purpose:

   • To map out the specific steps, actors, and objectives of a particular project.

   • To trace how different components contribute to achieving the project’s goals.

Example:
If the health app was part of a national initiative to digitalize healthcare, a project map would focus on the different stages of development, key stakeholders (government agencies, tech firms, healthcare providers), resources, and expected outcomes. It might highlight specific challenges, such as regulatory hurdles or public pushback against digital health services.

Situational maps are embedded in Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and Symbolic Interactionism. ANT, as formulated by Bruno Latour and others, argues that technologies, artifacts, and non-human entities have agency within social networks, which is crucial when mapping the role of technological artifacts in human interactions. Clarke’s work extends the symbolic interactionist tradition by broadening it to include non-human actors, following a posthumanist critique.

In Techno-Anthropology, situational maps serve to disentangle the complexities of human-technology relations by showing how technical and social elements are co-produced. Technologies like the health app in the example above are not neutral tools but are embedded in social worlds, material infrastructures, discourses, and power relations. The maps encourage researchers to see these relationships as dynamic, situational, and contingent.