If we consider action research a methodic enquiry into the everyday, it is advisable to document the methodology and prescribe how to test it against the open world. The commitment to it will determine how successful we are in informing and enacting in actual publics.
Further down the road, these methodologies distinguish domain-related approaches to experimentation. The major fields of curiosity are related to discourses known from empiric philosophy, social semiology and human geography. They were established in practice and formulate a context-aware mashup of sufficient constraints for exploring their interdependency.
Asking for the identification and explication of patterns of commoning is the ethical ideal of any engagement here. Yet since their discovery is entrenched in political and economic processes, we look at how to build a framework for tracking other's promises in the distributed and manifold scapes of interacting organized networks.
A neccessary side quest to follow is how to understand the very active research as hacking with care, instead of being subjugated and enclosed by market forces and digital colonialism. Only then we can succeed in telling our community story.
The decline of representational modes of human affairs, in a world post democracy, paves the way for an increase in collective self-esteem. The weaknesses and incompletenesses of networked publics open the space for slow and collective reappropriation of shared ecologies.
When thick mapping of these issues helps in organising our disappointment, the scene is freed for advances in polysynchronous learning of speculative subjects, such as proposing a social semiotic fold of diagrammatics, topology and spatiotemporality, for example.
While the given interpretation of the material-semiotic method resembles a scientific process, its generative origins are too anarchist for colonial academia, and too formal for spontaneous direct action. Effectively, the distinction of sciences from the everyday only caused the structural enclosure of its reasoning and practice, by isolating forces. To take discoursive responsibility, the use of a qualitative method, to normatively engage in discourses about understanding knowledge, gives momentum to weaving the fragile connections between imaginative, existing and disappeared heterotopoleis.