Assemblage thinking as methodology: commitments and practices for critical policy research

TLDR: The authors identify a suite of epistemological commitments associated with assemblage thinking, including an emphasis on multiplicity, processuality, labour, and uncertainty, and then consider explicitly how such commitments might be translated into methodological practices in policy research.

Abstract: Assemblage thinking as methodology: commitments and practices for critical policy research. Territory, Politics, Governance. The concept of assemblage has captured the attention of critical social scientists, including those interested in the study of policy. Despite ongoing debate around the implications of assemblage thinking for questions of structure, agency, and contingency, there is widespread agreement around its value as a methodological framework. There are now many accounts using assemblage-inflected methodologies of various sorts as analytical tools for revealing, interpreting, and representing the worlds of policy-making, though few are explicit about their methodological practice. In this paper, we identify a suite of epistemological commitments associated with assemblage thinking, including an emphasis on multiplicity, processuality, labour, and uncertainty, and then consider explicitly how such commitments might be translated into methodological practices in policy research. Drawing...

Full text

University of Wollongong
Research Online
"$6-5:0'0$*"-$*&/$&4"1&34 "$6-5:0'0$*"-$*&/$&4

Assemblage thinking as methodology:
commitments and practices for critical policy
research
Tom Baker
University of Auckland
Pauline M. McGuirk
University of Wollongong1.$(6*3,608&%6"6
&4&"3$)/-*/&*45)&01&/"$$&44*/45*565*0/"-3&104*503:'035)& /*7&34*5:0'!0--0/(0/(03'635)&3*/'03."5*0/$0/5"$55)& !*#3"3:
3&4&"3$)16#4608&%6"6
6#-*$"5*0/&5"*-4
",&3$6*3,44&.#-"(&5)*/,*/("4.&5)0%0-0(:$0..*5.&/54"/%13"$5*$&4'03$3*5*$"-10-*$:3&4&"3$)
&33*503:0-*5*$407&3/"/$&

Assemblage thinking as methodology: commitments and practices for
critical policy research
Abstract
44&.#-"(&5)*/,*/("4.&5)0%0-0(:$0..*5.&/54"/%13"$5*$&4'03$3*5*$"-10-*$:3&4&"3$)&33*503:
0-*5*$407&3/"/$&>&$0/$&150'"44&.#-"(&)"4$"1563&%5)&"@&/5*0/0'$3*5*$"-40$*"-4$*&/5*454
*/$-6%*/(5)04&*/5&3&45&%*/5)&456%:0'10-*$:&41*5&0/(0*/(%&#"5&"306/%5)&*.1-*$"5*0/40'
"44&.#-"(&5)*/,*/('0326&45*0/40'4536$563&"(&/$:"/%$0/5*/(&/$:5)&3&*48*%&413&"%"(3&&.&/5
"306/%*547"-6&"4".&5)0%0-0(*$"-'3".&803,>&3&"3&/08."/:"$$06/5464*/("44&.#-"(&*/?&$5&%
.&5)0%0-0(*&40'7"3*06440354"4"/"-:5*$"-500-4'033&7&"-*/(*/5&313&5*/("/%3&13&4&/5*/(5)&803-%40'
10-*$:.",*/(5)06()'&8"3&&91-*$*5"#0655)&*3.&5)0%0-0(*$"-13"$5*$&/5)*41"1&38&*%&/5*':"46*5&0'
&1*45&.0-0(*$"-$0..*5.&/54"440$*"5&%8*5)"44&.#-"(&5)*/,*/(*/$-6%*/("/&.1)"4*40/.6-5*1-*$*5:
130$&446"-*5:-"#063"/%6/$&35"*/5:"/%5)&/$0/4*%&3&91-*$*5-:)0846$)$0..*5.&/54.*()5#&
53"/4-"5&%*/50.&5)0%0-0(*$"-13"$5*$&4*/10-*$:3&4&"3$)3"8*/(0/"3&4&"3$)130+&$50/5)&%&7&-01.&/5
"/%&/"$5.&/50')0.&-&44/&4410-*$:*/6453"-*"8&&91-03&)085)3&&.&5)0%0-0(*$"-13"$5*$&4="%015*/(
"/&5)/0(3"1)*$4&/4*#*-*5:53"$*/(4*5&4"/%4*56"5*0/4"/%3&7&"-*/(-"#06340'"44&.#-*/(=$"/#&64&%50
01&3"5*0/"-*;&"44&.#-"(&5)*/,*/(*/-*()50'5)&$)"--&/(&40'$0/%6$5*/($3*5*$"-10-*$:3&4&"3$)
Disciplines
%6$"5*0/<0$*"-"/%&)"7*03"-$*&/$&4
Publication Details
",&3$6*3,44&.#-"(&5)*/,*/("4.&5)0%0-0(:$0..*5.&/54"/%13"$5*$&4'03$3*5*$"-
10-*$:3&4&"3$)&33*503:0-*5*$407&3/"/$&
>*4+063/"-"35*$-&*4"7"*-"#-&"5&4&"3$)/-*/& )@130608&%6"6441"1&34

Assemblage thinking as methodology:
Commitments and practices for critical policy research
Tom Baker
Private Bag 92019
School of Environment
University of Auckland
Auckland 1142
New Zealand
Pauline M
c
Guirk
University of Wollongong, Australia
Published in Territory, Politics, Governance
Volume 5, 2017 - Issue 4 Pages 425-442

Abstract
The concept of assemblage has captured the attention of critical social scientists, including those
interested in the study of policy. Despite ongoing debate around the implications of assemblage
thinking for questions of structure, agency, and contingency, there is widespread agreement
around its value as a methodological framework. There are now many accounts using assemblage
inflected methodologies of various sorts as analytical tools for revealing, interpreting, and
representing the worlds of policy-making, though few are explicit about their methodological
practice. In this paper, we identify a suite of epistemological commitments associated with
assemblage thinking, including an emphasis on multiplicity, processuality, labour, and uncertainty,
and then consider explicitly how such commitments might be translated into methodological
practices in policy research. Drawing on a research project on the development and enactment of
homelessness policy in Australia, we explore how three methodological practices—adopting an
ethnographic sensibility, tracing sites and situations, and revealing labours of assembling—can be
used to operationalise assemblage thinking in light of the challenges of conducting critical policy
research.
Keywords
Assemblage thinking; assemblage methodologies; critical policy studies, policy-making

Finding ‘Common Ground’ with assemblage methodologies
In August 2009, an Australian newspaper headline announced the arrival of a ‘Big Apple plan for
Sydney homeless’ (Bibby and Murray 2009: n.p.). Contrasted with shelters and other approaches
that ‘managed’ homelessness, it involved implementing a model claimed to be capable of ‘ending’
homelessness. Upending the traditional ‘treatment first’ approach, this Housing First model
would provide direct access to permanent housing coupled with intensive, ongoing, client-
directed support services. It would be aimed specifically at the chronically homeless, a sub-group
defined by multiple disabling conditions and long-term experiences of homelessness. The ‘Big
Apple’ part of the plan referred to a particular Housing First model associated with Common
Ground, a New York City organisation famed for its grand refurbishments of formerly derelict
Midtown Manhattan hotels. Offering “more than just a short-term bed”, New South Wales
(NSW) Premier Nathan Rees supported Common Ground’s Housing First model, in part, on the
basis of its being “successfully established in New York and other cities” (ibid.). International
evaluation evidence lent support to Housing First as a proven ‘solution’ to chronic homelessness.
As NSW Housing Minister David Borger stated, “[a]ll the research tells us that providing
chronically homeless people with long-term housing and strong support services can help get
them back on their feet and break the cycle of homelessness” (ibid.). Data from another type of
research—administrative cost-studies—was important too in promoting the policy shift, drawing
decision-makers’ attention to the high-cost nature of chronic homelessness. Awareness of an
unrealised fiscal dividend began to dovetail with evidence of program effectiveness. Humanitarian
and fiscal-economic justifications were thus drawn together, helping to assemble a new approach
to chronic homelessness in Sydney.

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What contributions have the authors mentioned in the paper "Assemblage thinking as methodology: commitments and practices for critical policy research" ?

The concept of assemblage has captured the attention of critical social scientists, including those interested in the study of policy. In this paper, the authors identify a suite of epistemological commitments associated with assemblage thinking, including an emphasis on multiplicity, processuality, labour, and uncertainty, and then consider explicitly how such commitments might be translated into methodological practices in policy research. Drawing on a research project on the development and enactment of homelessness policy in Australia, the authors explore how three methodological practices ¿ adopting an ethnographic sensibility, tracing sites and situations, and revealing labours of assembling ¿ can be used to operationalize assemblage thinking in light of the challenges of conducting critical policy research. This journal article is available at Research Online: http: //ro. uow. edu. au/sspapers/3177 The concept of assemblage has captured the attention of critical social scientists, including those interested in the study of policy. There are now many accounts using assemblage inflected methodologies of various sorts as analytical tools for revealing, interpreting, andThe concept of assemblage has captured the attention of critical social scientists, including those interested in the study of policy. In this paper, the authors identify a suite of epistemological commitments associated with assemblage thinking, including an emphasis on multiplicity, processuality, labour, and uncertainty, and then consider explicitly how such commitments might be translated into methodological practices in policy research. Drawing on a research project on the development and enactment of homelessness policy in Australia, the authors explore how three methodological practices—adopting an ethnographic sensibility, tracing sites and situations, and revealing labours of assembling—can be used to operationalise assemblage thinking in light of the challenges of conducting critical policy research. 

Q2. What is the purpose of assemblage methodologies?

Whether exposing the fragile renewal of dominant agendas and political projects, or identifying and publicising latent alternatives, assemblage methodologies offer a promising way to enlarge the analytical-political capacities of critical policy scholarship. 

Q3. What are the two essential methods for policy researchers?

Interviewing and documentary analysis, both indispensable methods for policy researchers, provide opportunities for constituting detailed and defamiliarised accounts of practice. 

Q4. What are the components of the jumble through which human intentionality is projected?

Consultant reports, briefs, meeting minutes, presentation slides, and spreadsheets are all part of the jumble through which human intentionality is projected. 

Q5. What do Anderson and McFarlane (2011: 126) say about assemblage thinking?

Anderson and McFarlane (2011: 126) contend that assemblage “suggests a certain ethos of engagement with the world, one that experiments with methodological and presentational practices in order to attend to a lively world of differences”. 

Q6. What are the three practices that help operationalise the commitments of assemblage methodologies?

The authors propose three practices that help operationalise the commitments of assemblage methodologies for such studies: (i) adopting an ethnographic sensibility, (ii) tracing sites and situations, and (iii) revealing labours of assembling. 

Q7. What did the authors use to explore the relational and multiscalar processes that pervaded?

The authors used interview questions, for instance, to explore the relational and often multiscalar processes whereby the technical knowledge and expertise embedded in these evaluations and studies were drawn together to constitute target populations (i.e. the chronically homeless) and align those populations with appropriate solutions (i.e. Housing First). 

Q8. What was the role of the federal government in configuring the Sydney Common Ground project?

The favourable alignment of federal and state government agendas was clearly important in configuring and enabling the Sydney Common Ground project, yet local material conditions also played a decisive role.