@@ -243,6 +243,167 @@ There are some no-edit orders that are acceptable. For example, if a consensus h
1.8 Real life threats: "The Wikimedia Foundation, if need be, will investigate or arrange for law enforcement to investigate threats of violence."
"
\section{Methodology}
\subsection{Grounded Theory}
"This book provides \textit{a} way of doing grounded theory" (p.9)~\cite{Charmaz2006}
Preface
"At each phase of the research journey, \textit{your} reasings of your work guide your next moves."(p.xi)
"In short, the finished work is a construction–yours." (p.xi)
Chapter 1
"we build levels of abstraction directly from the data" (p.3)
"Glaser and Strauss aimed to move qualitative inquiry beyond descriptive studies into the reals of explanatory theoretical frameworks,"(p.6)
Criteria:
"a completed grounded theory met the following criteria: a close fit with the data, usefulness, conceptual density, durability over time, modifiability, and explanatory power." (p.6)
"assumed that process, not structure, was fundamental to human existence" (p.7)
"A process consists of unfolding temporal sequences that may have identifiable markers with clear beginnings and endings and benchmarks in between. [...] Thus, single events become linked as part of a larger whole." (p.10)
"we are part of the world we study and the data we collect. We \textit{construct} our grounded theories through our past and present involvements and interactions with people, perspectives, and research practices."(p.10)
"My approach explicitely assumes that any theoretical rendering offers and \textit{interpretive} portrayal of the studied world, not an exact picture of it." (p.10)
"I advocate gathering rich–detailed and full–data and placing them in their relevant situational and social contexts." (p.10-11) // cooking data with care
Chapter 2:
"What do you want to study? Which research problem might you pursue? [...] How do you use methods to gather rich data?" (p.13)
"Obtaining rich data means seeking 'thick' description (Geertz, 1973)" (p.14)
"we first aim to see this world as our research participants do–from the inside."(p.14)
"You might learn that what outsiders assume abouth the world you study may be limited, imprecise, mistaen, or egregiously wrong."(p.14)
"\texit{How} you collect data affects \texit{which} phenomena yo will see, \textit{how}, \textit{where}, and \textit{when} you will view them, and \textit{what} sense you will make of them." (p.15)
"We are not scientific obeservers who can dismiss scrutiny of our values by claiming scientific neutrality and authority." (p.15)
"grounded theorists often begin their studies with certain research interests and a set of general concepts" (p.16)
"need to remain as open as possible to whatever we see" (p.17)
"We do not force preconceived ideas and theories directly upon our data." (p.17)
"The quality–and credibility–of your study starts with the data." (p.18)
"Skimpy data may give you a wonderful start but do not add up to a detailed study or a nuanced grounded theory." (p.18)
"What kind of data stands as rich and sufficient?:
* Have I collected enough background data about persons, processes, and settings to have ready recall and to understand and portray the full range of contexts of the study? // what actors are there: admins; editors (good faith/vandals); edit filter managers (how do I become a member of this group?); people requesting an edit filter
* Have I gained detailed descriptions of a range of participants' views and actions? // I have got traces.. ; TODO maybe look for which filters have a discussion/filter request/sock puppet investigation linked to them in the comments; maybe also conduct IVs?
* Do the data reveal what lies beneath the surface?
* Are the data sufficient to reveal changes over time? // TODO: get hold of the log table!!!!
* Have I gained multiple views of participants' range of actions? // + filter actions! (filters are also actors according to ANT)
* Have I gathered data that enable me to develop analytic categories?
* What kinds of comparisons can I make between data? How do these comparisons generate and inform my ideas?
" (p.18-19)
"We demonstrate our respect by making concerted efforts to learn about their views and actions and to try to understand their lives from their perspectives." (p.19)
"we must test our assumptions about the worlds we study, not unwittingly reproduce these assumptions."(p.19)
"It means discovering what our research participants take for granted or do not state as well as what they say and do."(p.19)
"We try to understand but do not ncessarily adopt or reproduce their views as our own."(p.19)
starting questions:
"
* What's happening here?
* What are the basic social processes?
* What are the basic social psychological processes" (p.20)
"Everything may seem significant–or trivial."(p.20)
TODO: Look for this in potential IVs:
"
* From whose point of view is a given process fundamental? From whose is it marginal?
* How do the observed social processes emerge? How do participants' actions construct them?
* Who exerts control over these processes? Under what conditions?
* What meanings do different participants attribute to the process? How do they talk about it? What do they emphasize? What do they leave out?
* How and when do their meanings and actions concerning the process change?
"(p.20)
"Do they provide an idealized picture wrapped in a public relations rhetoric" (p.20)
"When does a basic social process become visible or change?"(p.20)
"Actions may defy stated intentions. Different participants have different vantage points–and, sometimes, competing agendas. Do they realize they hold competing agendas? How do they act on them? When, if ever, does conflict emerge?"
TODO: Look for people who have triggered smth repeatedly. Could it be good faith? Or were they testing? What happened afterwards?
Field notes in GT:
"
* record individual and collective action
* contain full, detailed notes with anecdotes and observations
* emphasize significant processes occurring in the setting
* address what participants define as interesting and/or problematic
* attend to participants' language use
* place actors and actions in scenes and contexts
* become progressively focused on key analytic ideas
" (p.22)
TODO: show the actions and process that construct the topic
"show how people move through the organization–or are moved through it" (p.23)
"seeing data everywhere and nowhere" (p.23)
GT:
1) compare data from the beinning of the research
2) compare data with emerging categories
3) demonstrate relations between concepts and categories (p.23)
TODO: answer following questions (p.24)
"
* What is the setting of action? When and how does action take place?
* What is going on? What is the overall activity being studied, the relatively long-term behavior about which participants organize themselves? What specific acts comprise this activity? --> maintaining a community-sources encyclopedia?
* What is the distribution of participants over space and time in these locales?
* How are actors [research participants] organized? What organizations effect, oversee, regulate or promote this activity?
* How are members stratified? Who is ostensibly in charge? Does being in charge vary by activity? How is membership achieved and maintained?
* What do actory pay attention to? What is important, preoccupying, critical?
* What do they pointedly ignore that other persons might pay attention to?
* What symbols do actors invoke to understand their worlds, the participants and processes whithin them, and the objects and events they encounter? What names do they attach to objects, events, persons, roles, settings, equipment?
* What practices, skills, strategems, methods of operation do actors employ?
* Which theories, motives, excuses, justifications or other explanations do actors use in accounting for their participation? How do they explain to each other, not to outside investigators, what they do and why they do it?
* What goals do actors seek? When, form their perspective, is an act well or poorly done? How do they judge action–by what standards, developed and applied by whom?
* What rewards do various actors gain from their participation?"
"intensive intervie fosters eliciting each participant's interpretation of his or her experience"(p.25)
"Researchers treat extant texts \textit{as} data to address their research questions although these texts were produced for other–often very different–purposes." (p.35)
"As acounts, texts tell something of intent and have intended–and perhaps unintended–audiences."(p.35)
"interview respondents may wish to appear affable, intelligent, or politically correct and thus shape their responses accordingly" (p.36)
"search for reasons for disparities between observed realities and written responses"(p.36)
additional types of data we can use:
public records, government reports, organizational documents, mass media, literature, autobiographies, personal correspondence, Internet discussions, and earlier qualitative materials from data banks.
TODO: Answer for myself:
"
* What are the parameters of the information?
* On what and whose facts does this information rest?
* What does the information mean to various participants or actors in the scene?
* What does the information leave out?
* Who has access to facts, records, or sources of the information?
* Who is the inteded audience for the information?
* Who benefits from shaping and/or interpreting this information in a particular way?
* How, if at, all does the information affect actions?
"(p.37-38)
"To the extent possible, we need to situate texts in their contexts." (p.39)
"Where do the data come from? Who participated in shaping them? What did the authors intend? Have participants provided sufficient information for us to make a plausible interpretation? And do we have sufficient knowledge of the relevant worlds to read their words with any understanding?"(p.39)
"Much textual analysis is without context, or worse, out of context. [...] Providing a description of the times, actors, and issues gives you a start. Multiple methods help, such as intervieweing key participants, and using several types of documents also helps." (p.39)
TODO: Questions to ask of a text (p.39-40):
"
* How was the text produced? By whom?
* What is the ostensible purpose of the text? Might the text serve other unstated or assumed purposes? Which ones?
* How does the text represent what its author(s) assumed to exist? Which meanings are embedded within it? How do those meanings reflect a particular social, historica, and perhaps organizational context?
* What is the structure of the text?
* How does its structure shape what is said? Which categories can you discern in its structure? What can you glean from these categories? Do the categories change in sequential texts over time? How so?
* Which contextual meanings does the text imply?
* How does its content construct images of reality?
* Which realities does the text claim to represent? How does it represent them?
* What, if any, unintended information and meanings might you see in the text?
* How is language used?
* Which rules govern the constructuion of the text? How can you discern them in the narrative? How do these rules reflect both tacit assumptions and explicit meanings? How might they be related to other data on the same topic?
* When and how do telling points emerge in the text?
* What kinds of comparisons can you make between texts? Between different texts on the same topic? Similar texts at different times such as organizational annual reports? Between different authors who address the same questions?
