Writing and Ritual: Abbott’s Lyrical Sociology and Law’s Elusive Method

The article examines the problem of the sensible object and research on sensitive topics in sociology, using a pilot study of the Korean diaspora in Almaty (Kazakhstan) conducted in 2025, which included interviews with diaspora representatives as well as an analysis of its institutional environment. From a theoretical perspective, studying sensitive topics and objects requires abandoning ‘strong’ narratives, both positivist and constructivist, that dominated sociology until the early 1990s. The turn toward ‘weak’ descriptions, which began to develop actively in the early 2000s, is examined in the article through two approaches: Andrew Abbott’s lyrical sociology and John Law’s ‘care-ful research’. Although there are no theoretical or methodological intersections between the two approaches, the article demonstrates that they work with the problem of subjectivity; moreover, their methods complement each other, making it possible to offer a full-fledged alternative to the strong sociological narrative. Using the empirical example of the public representation of the Korean diaspora in Kazakhstan and its elusive character, the article shows how strong narratives, lyrical descriptions, and elusive research can complement each other at different levels of approaching the object and discovering its sensibility. As a result, it is shown how the same research object can take on a stable, open-to-discussion form or a sensitive, sensible form in different situations, and how the object’s variable character, its inaccessibility to formalization and clear description, make it elusive and sensitive to external approaches.

1. Bagina Ya.A., Govorova A. D., Naryan S. K. (2021) “One in the Field is Not a Warrior” or “Three’s a Crowd”? Tandem Interviews in Qualitative Research. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, (4), pp. 53–76. DOI: 10.14515/ monitoring.2021.4.1986. — in Russ.

2. Bukeeva A., Aulbekova A. (2025, May 8) 75 Richest Businessmen of Kazakhstan-2025. Forbes Kazakhstan. https://forbes.kz/articles/75-bogateyshih-biznesmenov-kazahstana-2025. — in Russ.

3. Yem N., Kim V. (2023) Analysis of the Transformation of Ethnic Entrepreneurship: Processes and Features of Kore Saram Business Research. Journal of Oriental Studies, 104(1), pp. 46–58. https://doi.org/10.26577/JOS.2023.v104.i1.06. — in Russ.

4. Yem N., Kim V. (2024) Social Adaptation Strategies: Life Stories of the Third Generation of Koreans in Kazakhstan. Journal of Oriental Studies, 110(3), pp. 16–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26577/JOS.2024.v110.i3.02. — in Russ.

5. Efremov E. A. (2021) Influence of the Multiethnic Environment on the Diasporic Identity of Koreans in Kazakhstan. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Asian and African Studies, 13(4), pp. 519–529. DOI: 10.21638/spbu13.2021.404. — in Eng.

6. Ipatova A. A. (2014) How Reasonable is Our Belief in Survey Results, or Violations of Research Ethics in Sociological Studies. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 3 (121), pp. 26–39. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2014.3.02. — in Russ.

7. Ipatova A. A., Solodovnikova O. B. (2023) Surveying Adolescents: Ethical Issues and Legal Regulation. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 1 (173), pp. 3–19. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2023.1.2324. — in Russ.

8. Kamenskikh M. S. (2024) Intangible Ethnocultural Heritage in Diasporic Communities: The Example of Russian Koreans. Herald of Anthropology, (3), pp. 23–37. DOI: 10.33876/2311-0546/2024-3/23-37. — in Russ.

9. Koroleva E. V. (2010) Features of Missionary Activity of New Religious Movements in Modern Kazakhstan. RUDN Journal of Sociology, (2), pp. 27–40. — in Russ.

10. Kurakin D. (2010) “Strong Program” in Cultural Sociology: Historical-Sociological, Theoretical and Methodological Comments. Editor’s Afterword to the Special Issue. Russian Sociological Review, 9(2), pp. 155–178. — in Russ.

11. Kurakin D. (2011) The Elusive Sacred: The Problem of Sacred Ambivalence and Its Significance for the “Strong Program” of Cultural Sociology. Russian Sociological Review, 10(3), pp. 41–70. — in Russ.

12. Latour B. (2006) We Have Never Been Modern. Essay on Symmetrical Anthropology. St. Petersburg. — in Russ.

13. Law. J. (2006) Objects and Spaces. Russian Sociological Review, 5(1), pp. 30–42. — in

14. Law J. (2015) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Transl. from English; Ed. by S. Gavrilenko. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House. — in Russ.

15. Min L. V. (1992) Family Traditions and Customs of Koreans Living in Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata: Society of Psychologists of Kazakhstan (Psychological Center). URL: https://library-koresaram.com/f/kniga_min_lv_semejnye_tradicii_i_obychai_korejcev_kazahstana.pdf (Accessed 08.02.2026). — in Russ.

16. Mol A. (2017) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Perm: Hyle Press. — in Russ.

17. Mokhov S. V. (2022) Care for the Dying and Seriously Ill People in the Late USSR (1960–1991): Practices, Institutions and Impact on Modernity. The Journal of Social Policy Studies, 20(2), pp. 323–334. — in Russ.

18. Filippov A. F. (2004) Constructing the Past in the Process of Communication: Theoretical Logic of the Sociological Approach. Preprint WP6/2004/05. Moscow: HSE. — in Russ.

19. Haraway D. (2020) Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Perm: Hyle Press. — in Russ.

20. Abbott A. (1995) Sequence analysis: New methods for old ideas. Annual Review of Sociology, 21(1), pp. 93–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.000521.

21. Abbott A. (2007) Against narrative: A preface to lyrical sociology. Sociological Theory, 25(1), pp. 67–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2007.00298.x.

22. Abbott A. (2016) Processual sociology. University of Chicago Press.

23. Bell K., Wynn L. L. (2023) Research ethics committees, ethnographers and imaginations of risk. Ethnography, 24(4), pp. 537–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138120983862.

24. Bernardeau Moreau D. (2015) Intervention sociology: History and foundations. International Review of Sociology, 25(1), pp. 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2014.976952.

25. Brooke M. (2018) Le Play: engineer and social scientist. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351309646.

26. Kokaisl P. (2018) Koreans in Central Asia — a different Korean nation. Asian Ethnicity, 19(4), pp. 428–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631369.2018.1439725.

27. Law J. (2021) From after method to care-ful research (a foreword). Intimate Accounts of Education Policy Research, pp. xvi–xx. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003123613.

28. Law J., Lin W. Y. (2022) Care-ful research: sensibilities from science and technology studies (STS). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Design, pp. 127–141. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529770278.n9.

29. Lazer D., Pentland A., Adamic L., Aral S., Barabási A-L., Brewer D., Christakis N., Contractor N., Fowler J., Gutmann M., Jebara T., King G., Macy M., Roy D., Van Alstyne M. (2009) Computational social science. Science, 323(5915), pp. 721–723. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167742.

30. Lim I. T. (2019) The imaginary as method. “Lyrical sociology” as a heuristic of sociological description. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 44(Suppl 2), pp. 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11614-019-00377-w.

31. Moser I., Law J. (1998) Materiality, textuality, subjectivity: Notes on desire, complexity and inclusion. Concepts and Transformation: International Journal of Action Research and Organizational Renewal, 3, pp. 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1075/cat.3.3.03mos?locatt=mode:legacy.

32. Parra Saiani P. (2018) Doing sociology in the age of “evidence-based research”: Scientific epistemology versus political dominance. The American Sociologist, 49(1), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-017-9358-9.

33. Rook D. W. (2006) Let’s pretend: projective methods reconsidered. In Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Marketing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847204127.00019.

34. Singleton V. (2010) Good farming: Control or care. Care in Practice: On Tinkering in Clinics, Homes and Farms, pp. 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1515/transcript.9783839414477.

35. Strathern M. (2011) Binary license. Common Knowledge, 17(1), pp. 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1215/0961754X-2010-040.

36. Tapscott R., Moxon S. (2025) Vulnerability in procedural ethics: A study of 44 national research ethics guidelines. Qualitative Research, 14687941251377266. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941251377266.

37. Taylor J., Patterson M. (2010) Autonomy and compliance: How qualitative sociologists respond to institutional ethical oversight. Qualitative Sociology, 33(2), pp. 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-010-9148-y.

38. Wacquant L. (2004) Following Pierre Bourdieu into the field. Ethnography, 5(4), pp. 387–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138104052259.

39. YefremovDiaspora Studies Y., Kim, 1( Gaop., Yem), pp N. 1–28. . (2025) httpsIdentities://doi.org of/10.1163/09763457- The Korean Diasporabja10192 in Kazakhstan.

40. Yoon S. S. (2008) Festive occasions: the customs in Korea (Vol. 24). Seoul: Ewha Womans University Press.