Interview mit dating gurus
Entering UCSF as a student in 1980, I finally "came home" intellectually and methodologically—to symbolic interactionism (SI) and GTM (CLARKE & STAR, 1998).
As students, we pursued our own research projects from design to final presentations with superb faculty: Ginnie OLESEN and Lenny SCHATZMAN taught field research while Anselm followed with qualitative analysis in a small working group.
I immediately met Susan Leigh STAR in Anselm's symbolic interactionist theory class and soon we were in a writing group for qualitative researchers, including Kathy CHARMAZ and others.
Leigh later wrote beautifully of her long and angst-ridden trek towards Anselm and GTM (STAR, 2007), which paralleled my own.
In my job in survey research, I noticed that answers to "open-ended" questions were left in the file cabinets because no one knew what to do with them.  A decade later, I sought a doctoral program in sociology that would allow me to specialize in qualitative research, medical sociology, and women's health.
A most generous colleague at Sonoma State University, Kathy CHARMAZ, directed me to UCSF, Anselm STRAUSS and Ginnie OLESEN.
We need to comprehend them and what might be effective in reducing social suffering and sustaining biodiversity.
I am also a great believer in studying up, studying the sites of power to allow more effective interventions toward enhanced social justice through improved governance (e.g., BOGNER, LITTIG & MENZ, 2009; CHARMAZ, 2011; HARVEY, 2011; MIKECZ, 2012).
To generate more equitable social policies that can take differences and complexities into account—human and nonhuman and from socialities to global warming—we need stronger social science methodologies that address relationalities.
The work of Fritz SCHÜTZE (e.g., 1975, 2008) and Gerhard RIEMANN (RIEMANN & SCHÜTZE, 1991), and yourself (KELLER, 2010 , 2011, 2012a, 2012b) certainly demonstrates this in the German context.
While there exists an array of innovative developments in the new millennium (e.g., CLARKE, 2002; the ] Complexities/relationalities are themselves heterogeneous and we need improved means of representing them coherently (LAW, 2004; TAYLOR, 2005).
New geopolitics of globalization, or preferably transnationalization, are changing how we might think about the "conditions of possibility" for the future in every substantive area and geopolitical location.
Interestingly, the theme for the 2012 meetings of the American Sociological Association (ASA) was "Real Utopias: Emancipatory Projects, Institutional Designs, Possible Futures." To me, "real utopian" thinking—confronting all those contradictions—is precisely what is needed.