The theoretical-methodological problematization in circulation and platform research 203 Once we challenge ourselves to study circulation, it becomes impossible to define a priori our methodological approaches, and I agree with Braga (2011). In each study, as the research pro- gressed, decisions have been made. For instance, I will consider some aspects relating to two studies that are considered unique regarding the need for closer observation, the back and forth be- tween the theoretical and the empirical, and the strain between qualitative and quantitative data. These two cases provide clues, from a micro approach to the more macro problems from the standpoint of Communication, such as the challenge of dealing with a multitude of discourses in circulation. This discursive offer encourages us to think about how we need to try to cross-reference information and data even after we have delimited our objects, selected a corpus for analysis, and determined that we are looking at a mi- cro phenomenon. This essay was developed from a dialog with my col- leagues Heike Graf, Mario Carlón, and Antonio Fausto Neto from the “Platforms, systems and circulation” panel at the 5th International Seminar4. These are fellow researchers with whom I have dialogued in recent years and who have had an impact on my academic production. The speech was transformed into a text that includes the following parts: a brief discussion of concepts such as complexity, observation, data, platforms, mediatization, and circulation. As the focus is on reporting experiments and methodological challenges, the second part is more extensive. As mentioned, the paper focuses on the need for methodologi- cal problematization in the development of research in the field of Communication that involves studying data, conceived as sig- nificant material. 4 It was challenging to speak alongside researchers I’ve known for different lengths of time: Fausto - whom I had the privilege of being supervised by during my master’s and doctoral studies and of being partners with at Ciseco; Mario, whom I’ve known for more than ten years, discussing the challenges of media- tization since the first editions of Ciseco; and Heike, who I had the pleasure of getting to know through the Capes/Stint project and exchanging ideas on Luhmann’s and Verón’s perspectives on complexity and circulation.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz