From 3d0d435f167e0455b581418c850843c5a950a969 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: zackbatist <zacharybatist@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 12:25:43 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Built site for gh-pages

---
 .nojekyll                    |   2 +-
 CITF-Postdoc.bib             |  17 ++++++
 ethics-protocol.pdf          | Bin 51460 -> 51460 bytes
 notes.html                   |   4 +-
 notes/methodology-notes.html | 110 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 research-protocol.pdf        | Bin 70379 -> 70383 bytes
 search.json                  |  10 ++--
 sitemap.xml                  |   2 +-
 8 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)

diff --git a/.nojekyll b/.nojekyll
index 19eaed5..2410fca 100644
--- a/.nojekyll
+++ b/.nojekyll
@@ -1 +1 @@
-b3355f65
\ No newline at end of file
+328fc3b6
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/CITF-Postdoc.bib b/CITF-Postdoc.bib
index eae2cf3..1453379 100644
--- a/CITF-Postdoc.bib
+++ b/CITF-Postdoc.bib
@@ -22729,6 +22729,23 @@ @incollection{guarino2009
   file = {/Users/zackbatist/Library/CloudStorage/Dropbox/zotero/Guarino et al 2009 - What Is an Ontology.pdf}
 }
 
+@article{gubrium1998,
+  title = {Narrative {{Practice}} and the {{Coherence}} of {{Personal Stories}}},
+  author = {Gubrium, Jaber F. and Holstein, James A.},
+  date = {1998},
+  journaltitle = {The Sociological Quarterly},
+  volume = {39},
+  number = {1},
+  pages = {163--187},
+  issn = {1533-8525},
+  doi = {10.1111/j.1533-8525.1998.tb02354.x},
+  url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1998.tb02354.x},
+  urldate = {2025-02-19},
+  abstract = {While the sociological analysis of personal stories is becoming more sophisticated, it would benefit from a refined appreciation for narrative practice. The theme of this article is that the coherence of stories and the experiences they convey are reflexively related to the manifold activities and the increasingly diverse conditions of storytelling. Drawing on ethnographically assembled story material, we offer an empirically sensitizing vocabulary to illustrate how practice constitutes coherence through the interplay of narrative composition and the local conditions of storytelling. The vocabulary high-lights the growing need to think of personal stories and their coherence as an active ensemble of narrative practice, now “owned” as much by the diverse auspices of story-telling as by the storyteller (Alasuutari 1997).},
+  langid = {english},
+  file = {/Users/zackbatist/Zotero/storage/JPP43SDP/Gubrium and Holstein   1998 - Narrative Practice and the Coherence of Personal Stories.pdf}
+}
+
 @article{guerra-doce2015,
   title = {The Origins of Inebriation: Archaeological Evidence of the Consumption of Fermented Beverages and Drugs in Prehistoric {{Eurasia}}},
   shorttitle = {The Origins of Inebriation},
diff --git a/ethics-protocol.pdf b/ethics-protocol.pdf
index 69d9b9f87c3c2eced05719f6659c64c8aa70bd9c..bd71b9502c881aa654abe4987ae4e814b3dde5d6 100644
GIT binary patch
delta 6033
zcmai0Rag`ZmlhBNB!_M#rIGIL4jH<nV?YNOBu5$s$-$wKMo?-%V(6hkx?Aa#kk0+~
z-@Vv>_hRqP#W~M&-gwS=BT}#;Qn0GOYCwf#W%0dzz>anx{0|FODK_rm0^~ib_vHRd
z)G9iliBQ~WAjypH6yyl#C6yolav?h8)>U`M79-LI{Fn{5l;fU>bbGc1&8XyawcQ4a
zMBV)HbbHHzsvCSR;l2>?&f)RAVj}koi2L4bIp(@A_$KFQMYi6t_(mYTc=<;L1C-eR
zm8p`mG9zOqwV&npAvL+N3jOVbo|?Y&cBbc-;r`WW#*;Zaz6*;PQQF`54mQ(2LrPoR
zgNy0PLb0t==D;tDrmd7(E8PS?qmrnet!tWQCvu;ti#(2O)4P^>-y3CcN^AEWzlcG1
z8#-xxyrS<`h#~jZCxY<|E4?xMC=MN=*GPKO#0A(W=iyZeWoyG};yQYPp{byyk7J(S
zJmk$lU!g#!^?Zk10{4Lu;}w#XL17+q1v^zkO`rWeS)sgEBVK3-V5N8{+;3O1qauO@
z4+==wz~6WiR|;*qUJTv$IUVqSb*R)#m6IEkIk}xa<7eO7S<~gA2F}a{juU#X_?DLP
z+}>lVjrDE9g|sC9mm<jq|0qJz_n(R!P^%Qqc)kex;Uhi+n!0fGas^A~_mZ6FuZC>t
z-c-wDwm08$_+8(sH1YdN2|g}fAj6WUD}a<yAxOX+MJ6y%+M)dOy5fgHUFuQ(1auIL
zDE$%gAknrx%G77HiZ|SKj+eR14n4R5%N|E?el5ER66-)m4h8!%sqSc6UGnJ2^xm1x
z5EZu88du(MOE=A>8QWScS5Fsz6)@E4UCP6fL3RuYwj>w@B25ISUv}aze@w&qJ7^k^
zZn6~$d_0wApZ|eqN29>jKQ|SUj(-|ZGxxk4PXLn|o`sQvlGdJZE|Deksrs{N#z55R
z235`!73+$noG}cwQ;jxL3TIjN9Gg`ZHk6CvFzLY=z47}&0duSz?%R4wLgPf2-W5^N
zt0iK(k+;P1p$IQ{m9`{Q<loE<*KrS*Cy6?GfXS4k{!&|7CJ!Ug!3-_oy>2{n^3jfL
z9PFh(J^FS_#Q8@5!%T+1GsNl6qj@0{MfH#dio-fDDA#e_oml}XtZAn$e6V93MD1iO
zHMpFP{H?WG3Em*Ylao1|y*-+}Ty6t_$#5p?psk3>$@gSj28P&^>xC?&uf0s7`zlJE
z+{=MHl({4iAu&Pwhf3NA$H0=blY>cwgS$5=+z9fHBRX)_s_f-tT!$8bici^7#bTmj
z=sB{fDX9TBii0$6_?VS3<8<}W6n$t(A=kt(+~p%c944+!@0dXTDl?RsglC%I>Cij?
zS_c-Umo#T_B3S4k7LJn#6e-|$<I{E<Y`sXpgkkMe$iL)SmH*yB9-id<U7pj0NO9%_
zU?9%EjgD|z7r~w8N{T=&e0=9D_(Z`<NW&qXmK7YERI1EJ+82RRWnx_wAt!g6-GPOn
zluiCAw7++R=qK%Ty^|S9!J}~XQK?nHL=~7}SdD-0=swS9CX|VX39qIETqssO>I#bG
zN=L8fCG4LsRjzp+3jFbWw#*zaWJ4EF={gH3Obdi!RLbnH!3}`q@FrbRs8w8{0D08W
zJw;QtBTacPtI;b(3vS%S<>DM<wI6V@QXnL0A@1RJx`m&CIzN(wDVKwzuXc{oY+R(!
z^bQj2TUXd9Y;|~0(cU}=t8EpvBIzmcEKlBe{8mpN)&sF2k{g<V^{h^|iQip6*h6;~
zk#XqR@YWSM&C7s*Q5IgPTVUtjWuL8zHXm|*U38&-hp*MN0`n#1Wc`*XD*A)j?EQR5
zR$oZd0;;4LmNt2@qn2=KcU4_+s7i|Cx@SYBP_^eCNH;i$LN+hhQt0Y&0k6-BLJ#-&
z|3)p2r0v=4Zf%Y`nKMRdqy{VmOyr68S`wtBvsAq1Q1}qX{+kyHCLEO33D1ShrF{e+
zU=84U<45ddM(mst7S$Mr697|Is#9(eFI4k>V2o!f3#sPOyuy1QMW8&&7L!}_G@_Q{
zc#4ihn#_SYw3L1P6RC@;qAZ*N_j-!eR7=_9SQ|_tErOQ|@cWiD>Ke{rN|%CmeGiEg
z>i+a(pL(1^ns62Fp>L_;K674MKkSj~wN;gU?t~l_p`Q;<xLSanN`%m>YOMmU4o8RW
z{<w{n0GD&J%s+VrxA_kTm+T(YN)g=)9G$j5+M0<>{7cc72C8_SzPQwTb=?E`@OK8(
zP){O4&SwJ+(*;V;!kJy)&%{yS$|S%{5#evpAgh+1ZbGd+L>Ac>l9b8o?S?&TxhA72
zw^)SvAJ1E%grS_p`*ZNm6@|6qF-u^0l2@?z&dmJpsj<BLSJd)rj&2Z0q!pWQB0t70
zGNinK6f%p7Q*WU5?!y~U7#tK#7-D2sj%*O1;~N9hCR3DE0bqqyDK7`0M_J`e-SHNq
z59+JZQlsC5kz&$2iU-baHKzN}#OBzhFl?18%P-^XU)Qd&Y9%4G|AJ;?$N?4nx3i<)
z=@ubC(z?yP)mWTLtrZARAnyzVmEi}*5A5K$0p3bqU5c2^D-jC`c&%h*h}C(Nt8x>c
zEz*qVM{Bt5z7xqJ!(|!KBtwL~L4Ps+`Sv$r47qs$=f^!W54MbcXgY);*!Y!fYW<SL
zmpSh}NhfNdp5>l4GJNs51P(M9d2)T-)6EQgk-{vp*at%zKANNNXa@P1mz@sz`M%1q
zvW~8cL)tZ{W4~=;GRz94@MwVh_ar&KZnm$KQFFXs|6|+6`17p7HaW0Bf#Oc)Aa=OP
z-YZDahaABjpD1T$AI{awG^7l2!FTj@`0pG6w*=zB6OFW=#l1U$;S!G5t{DkpJoV-P
zi~Wls9^?PR&=9OkfS~1;+vmVgGm{>bMlx5Din9<btaFr5;Xrtf)g!TSBnD9;=1x*r
zr_m@Z`cCxOfHB1jS)fXsBbf58nguU{GSJa9GxQCb-#938D}ik@vRSW^G^Ip(Sx;{N
z@1~oGSo1K&?MbKW<Wj;e5tJ38cM1aI&KsIU2hd9I4f;@?W@E6{Y7^$Nn+B^du32=n
zsWWp<c9nDP$4nJ^6HmEFdzcw?Lw3ET?AVABp0j!eI9x*#Fi+R%v6WaJ@A=E?$=b6q
z1KYpMn<3iNF2bH!9p56kRSWzBq&3edfciK#e%>?K#y{mk=D`Q}a6_OtR9HaZ-+Tfe
zc1O#T^c-DtU$}6l99d!Gxx7)gSX}EXZb<*++TnqwC4RWnxgcbujX7S-@&79*y)10u
zjQSIK3tCu{Z*81H3H!JomArUgQa+Qw6ocdoV868x_TO&Y<vWu78x_&K;CSRESH;vE
zytok{y9_n*ZQpVVkn{}Z)I{Z7UG1np{W*Vg+;~3aa5DkxL6f2x7WOQ>7~dj!7KK_r
zIop)58trRp>+W{u(*LpYD~|Hvm*&v;o=xocU++n<sj}bfLl-=z2l4?B?Q?x3o9ZHE
z16y7Cv>76q8kl<qPYxp?|A;^okkp|W$ZjyvZ15NpehdnDqlp^379D|Z2X*r6g;578
zKl`Y>`MX8jMAvU3GLOtwi}6+$_gDr&6RH35kAx{ZrmzIu&XgKz7{*kb|IA*U!H_`5
z;_m8+nR#=VDZu^uS9=v(7Covu%xsuPh>l{jcxq7LOi6WWC(pzjpzFjQI`%tHSj#X;
zvymav<kJ%JYvcRd9<_*_bxUKN+dKbnKl{%YYtVLW-jemhA`+q9AuM8XD(Zfg)_aa%
zaRf>%$&uiNxucs0xUS<jk505+$b}9-V;6%6WDu<(V-eU#`XfAj)891B<4;7gxEWtk
zBV&@|iMfQs><@61`NOTAnDK0!jc)FJX61o+hz2-O_lQn29O8V<D|^q<k{%1>|E>J8
zSgc4`w$dg3ynGBQoZ=hzpV({t&G2otUjI+q^q9MPFRB9W+uAW#nLS}0OKO9gTnq-^
zyJ4-8YuyBLW2~&T2xbaQ@WK80Z2-=bPAy8%z<U)M+l1UdvtG3$P2(8Q3!dgHpDgFw
z$=&ZiM~+rLpIv~Z@4X-bS&66qiFTiBLN1u428d2l-0o&aFJ2!@-?~CxOARGl_Wt!-
z9``UUYAF1s3z@Q?KWRLWgXZRJb|Igsy&5)*jf~MSdOpHgXta-wy4$yKd6BL`@tV_D
z*>=dNC)PmrGYpyx_}C1D{ysg3c(_<e+XS5`A@02d?v9!jB=`n>q+2r`qdBPhmS<}V
zB0_S^Sv*1IG5Hgvj64W{q=HzbikrJ-g7ahw{#V$%UCGlPbU02K8mmcE*1tgK12g{O
zo&kx<S|PLQFH)|S+|j6Q|M?+nCI)A!>pnrLCK}7_=o;~uo&kF(h7diue?vb<b)a-s
z33T}rEp=*Y8I^!m7WoO`kV)x;e&Z?Ux)XMEWKA}D7iLAs)lA#S*B0t0^mUveQFJ&B
z-_50_H_GeJTIMbE@!l^$sD)9FefM1wAxCYqfuC?Ld|PfK2Pi+5P#RW{1}@9L+tzXW
ze(ijw(5u6_>sAHTXSN6pR>#jSR@~_`bQON}Y&olwyn1zG66{Yyg0KD}v*r!WLhFm|
zcNs9~PdQ8OZuQed9U5#;`LzQv^Q6@|OV)=e=4RSTBYgvb9A*Ri=N*O>cSaQ}gySV<
zW4?3OYyH)@K%0uAp_Ac8o`68LTD!{@`kzB1E4-OT)4R^lb|TNyVs-|nc!m#Z%{^H=
zwnGao0||C<V$+?uI9}XBQKD8l+f<Xr=c;_H=?MmLVvDZ>PPQa_c~*k@<_NthUQ685
znIBQC8xZ|T9vRNAfRG)!xH<G8H))q^f|`0E)g_9<iuIqf&b}_Poizr|;=bcGrnK@9
zu3aVt51SW5_e`6Cu97nq#;AmI-X9?}iLhL}@=4NYe7cV%Sh~{{R0sVbkL$cShOC&)
zdL@2v4JO{8GQ8){pO!6pG!MUcu-CHuvAg*mU0Pko*bqF2WS+CLQ))FJ^SCskH>-CE
zW5`%3iB+9h5MUs31LzcZ0s;apEI$7b_0`K-UMZP_%789EO<wL4OotzIz2+}wNu?;8
zpgZe4A-9ky5@NktV6dGruujEhNK{hCH-K8|o;sUcPgB^N3pgbal7?sW)D}A@8s^g*
zgZzWkgp?|Yj!HuM#J!ErlMf$8EuKXmxH#_Wd(i((&e_e@!nuR}Qg{A+sCnZS=9ivM
zP8K%+Rdl6<&B6>H&C9m@&*a&rQ7Kj1*Uuyy`N>5s$el=s^ODN+S+MW64ZaiR*Nfid
zC-f3hMVUhrF`Tk6P>vs$JwDR@NG+NG;%}Vz7fyVB+o?}6PIO=SHt@p*Z@3S(;bG2g
z%kO%c$<vOL57wzapw>jNg_eVNkZ3!Y;;Y1$P{cFRGm*Hr+=Q}2ar4VT=~QQ+IGo7V
zad!u#lerCE7UBbM0CUObMkv>glFn2S#}ZCiij01_4PwE%;e4(DsV=Oz*2d17JSe!V
z$;ZpP;l$fwI->|1?i$95Zg7U?Ep(2t_HLfX-Xmf+2fHgZ5M20g#(#663#M>pU;Pz;
z{?_DgRy{nRrTc8^;PWGvE8w|ti}kp3Bv(c87=WFLUEAxTQIwcIq^fU|UHC0Z`>m69
z9ZK(GqSD&ivK`=csbTS#oUOu>U$z&o=`9F?xjfne8AkppNMy}+f~dnYE5ni?uf@%3
zW01dt*$kuQ*}w2V)3m}Cn#B(>{^gGBfErJ4ms1Ew<3jv4Z&f*EOp9WZ)&)#sxf07%
z9tvN@+V|{urjK6ACdhvBQZo@_g3Db#C4+G~Js$WJw8mtqg$u4q-C*cs;{B1(onP|H
zcu1%@k|fPEX}I>0dphryrSj!3=0$0(L9P|$^|xlQU@n@%&O)21y3E3AQQ7_!2t8c=
z)vlD?#Zl{C(DVawAz1HB`cXLH#_+Q4pM`5MgKXxnwgPd6jJ;Q8Q5?m)?!<3v+LEUd
zcI<C^ZM7V35a)Fp!Q5+Ed;T6Z3=1Ig%@5Q&4x>?0PggD_r8T*4R?bsNf=7hw_3(>{
z?Zv5N8VQQaG^w;YJB-5tnk=ioURI6f5RxSsCvBP8l;@rZnzH)ZWa+z-Gne6M+FKiD
zF1Epcbn?;!$Kyp1{&HpPs6}}x6Hnzs=xJCn^YdQ^!*4q|iGqo1D_}XoFS*gCBX5Y|
zf@rp<lO_eua0|2&=1d_x4;_QK><#DY5``jHH|TFFCxh^%q$LXc+-&DN^ZJ$cH|IOO
z`l{NX{sFS-l-a(-PH<9Rna4M&*TVy6Zj^wX^Tt=(UoI}xYW@5<0##Ngdnfl>;iMD4
z8t<k$c^Vqv$B}||bBie+^wUv)Pk0558!-yi1I}=&YYuc8?JQP2c@q0C;_UjXe?rHS
z`KA4uOy(u(ZsI+QNRqs4HrDqqYbGC}_r=x?t{F|sU+jMbJDboTd?NeMbv}<h#e2>i
zxEt%gAI<_&IC!LT2`ZnX95yo*Za6m3&bW`0X328)=W>0B2bn6KB61{+f}0GZ9$16Q
z`Mnp0_TLmwq$u@@_%6oE?o6Ja4b(wSH@cRTKKaKUvt=O$d3t24_L83EPrg$7vk@|{
zqe)vKoe<QAz?;9a<PurS1SOU}3bD-twhvF=#5!k+8c)sY_v}<?C)W>?N0jg_i+JN(
zkD)!CVDp-QU}BB>wOMBTv?1kjDH6x5JF9`Wv;Aujj-k%Y`9x<gI>%g|uh4h3gXEXS
z3X$JHZ(bYLm4$hP<`wMHQ5FYn6!Z~sWxe!(_wd1cj^q*XXg^1ojXi8NhtrE+Pj6(U
zPS_t+ZMe+K+Ye|*1id#svFL)Gf-3uyK9T^*?+4eCy9R-G=Gvq|v79GTqgWY8org+?
zSdFS-%4{sZ(xED6Xv?x3^zngBH{3{abhxxM{Pf-^MYSTOH;B-ce38~xJ8%}gTWVtE
zF-vpLgKyykn&YdB?elH=Ec&IhMu)Lgo3R<o|IZgkXZ#Fb{9p)oPa3K(Ugb#(uG|HT
z33p4y|0+a4&*5s&Tt*al7jpLZD2;0MOYYGZaJ?$Yc?ReJz5IO(isPQ%3A9{DD!Kr5
z;ilPgXvuY_oCWem1x>Els-~o@y_>KG-ua59hyRIhPSc(P^;j{sT^;s7_nz41g3Bs$
zNj6M!NV0?G3@7KDe7i=kKH;C3$vFkB;MfF4@-h)`==OyVulZS<hXlLs^3Pr5<ldcn
z*H#?s^;0wjC@0yt`6?e<bRn(R@b5dQEJ;l-B<V?)?7@z7LA;gyn`B{2n-SG2ca@f;
zbb?LSVShIs=I47HE8+t+E59=WHcS`*2N%S|p1Ys&bcQJ&uipPN2dd;@BH7@37Qwsb
zw*|A>)@%*ElCx73tN14}lEG(tX%z(pMI1%N?VRid?H%m}1ts1JzqYe?60sK$m$0`J
z6B3h^{{K4QLVa(bY~yPD$_CWYCx7=^8^+_u1L>A`K8;YfHkbiws+CzGqCg<P&RwlK
z^_cJq6Cv9zuD3GGKl+$k+bA|mO-2xv{!|DTYYbON09!Ua5<5NG(ex<>ix;E)R}s@t
z-?=EAxo`$tQux<2rF<I9YGOOUNnYviUkHb^5nLCFzJw8|x(n5I#mK9j2<n(9(-`=k
zM=O9>Ch5f=-(UnT<B8?2c9=Cy(|87fgg&myuZXwm7*wh9oT&;DMT&eI3bN$#*hLC#
z4vLiGFX$#-VwLAHmgnQR<rCfHW7Fp0E#y6y%p*qi1UfyAU*$QjbqSt(X84+K)t?zf
zcl&`#+Xs;*)$V3)v*E60veUE(`SO|Ur@D2j8^>xx{AxPpg<!@h^OQId-m0Y>_lm*g
zs+sg9CU?-led$c2w6)ve;CjPMgtVM1L%-JdnWB~lS5SXia5$7LQRWoB)c@)~0LyH`
Ab^rhX

delta 6048
zcmai0Ra6uVw^alQ89-oYq?@4|>F(|xx_f9wWI#$lMnbwv8JeMy#t)Gix{;I+B!|4-
z@9F>V%Y8p*owfJbYwrz9dj?B;R#&M86_S?5^AGTIwDZIZUbITHagXLB9bCI74LPJx
z((;^&!l^O#u|V=$w3vKG=INFw-cESSjN#I97oKPw7x<?g44I`>h1wp!^BT>44yiUO
ztMaaGXNHve*U%I+R`XzM?AVAX?Y5pG_Er;OvpODbBGn4$Y=T0HLf3M<7d3>TGKU5>
zbqU&W%WD$gWxtFqWMm<$K}AMPQGeF0IN33FgneV+%&UF7#jrWxzIoolA<?cATMuL<
zhD!h0SuVT4cDO3nQo;>_U5)&gruN=@F0h>hVuZoyUed;=lvZb3r>MdQDi|APy{-}q
zR=^k_rzemvHGQM6YwNO6@((d|z}HFbE#`>v2YL%fNA?r^Q%r}?ucI(so|#91C#Y6D
z^N(yfo_Yd6MFyqx*A}6LUsIbf9W{c<by-1jp9Zv&FaR5@m^W&{nIeR%Wk*kt#L3Ke
zYGP^bsYamVhwV#mY=kIW=SPI=tHtiU^R4OJ)#0X2Hz|T-N+-dz>2nl8!tvQ^^U6oZ
zZW|u2;bpjhh6I%Vzh3e|%e|iuKlV2oC;>@I8!xAZ$>!*jnIb2fIy#cmD5;jjz7;)2
z#*;#_dSg|l+%+Qai(h{<2dqQInYd^Q_1YoxIg@HI>K64dJIv;^e))iZv`xo(wfiFD
z2zqO)@0Yf3(f0u&c@uU`()N<8F%~vZ-eJBNDr!XcYi{`_pODH|_iwDKsGphbJiUf%
zUPOm|bu-DKmL99uF)1-<kC|z%WY>Q`yIQXxCA+>YZbj}FHieqEV3@>RDbB>2{)a(Q
zo9jw<?(vUZUxNh`6qYmE59TC%EA-ttfw7nwyy(xvnqU*R3D6@ZQo?4PEvwa3<e1KP
z>2J%jQT@~szROIno&~XN+q%BU3S01s7m;M09efIC(-cgRyghe@)8yqyzyHoGxl>?3
z^?27Z^n-J;$7DAn9A2j>0Tui&BH>F3(XxMuj7Vr(b~Jm9`n3NRr=~^s(sBvAE*laf
z@ej)S{K#aN(8^S9gBpJKjrp`utDAp}{*HIa2n(<|pS3tu*0Go{5T*V8v`-bKCCu06
zJ(JP3>-^jCQLlyh?)TiL@Myv6D$>d#n=jZJvJ1Tl>9KgHjtYS7AJ4+$vP46CJMd9n
z-|I=#HgPw+hetAdR|oowj|tAj@*)<qJ?ynN?FxX$rLC9upUefKaXN(pH{`dB1BI<_
z8W=6INkY{4q^neCf5Jl@enB7YagqJ?HylR}uXt3>=;QiPdONC7#gyzAz4~Lab-5tf
zHfYJ|#3UZS{RCBHp&4cxJwTt{c!EAz0Na;TmqwNsJEkuDX+4GkzI=W?21w4Is3Dm=
zu8&`woYj!JR<_bOiWxOS1(Sq7#rc)3#^{cs|DXYT&Egj?#)=ZYp+_T%3Uxb_O-NBJ
z?ZvtsPGGFd=(mb=LkGSYnw6?0T-m@08Q>V+UV;-AD}oT{y60+Giq1fFk%wLcrL~=I
ziRV5KG_Spd7@4>a`vytwk-280hbAJlZV?5Y%eOC#?GL`e^^8g3o!TN$4fmgXq{>$h
zKywKDAfcK5v)<GJ5zO-GPvtA$f7GX=bY*mNl^*WrZ>04p6fjf>*GfJgP#<5SyS>?7
zK0p*A>fmC{5kC(dTiX{CN~DkxL~O;b2k~2v2MDTYpDX?MJ=H%FPP|Vm!a=W~-JJld
znc>Ol94VU~&a3lN>mhTf&?Ri<H*zuo);Ugy9Chf3fKm;F(&D`Qv9vh4<+W)yjjwWR
zPZ<{YKF||NMo8BYO($+Sd^!qgDNrPJ_yo1W?+SG}bo}CWQ2pQ$9VjI8$u#o}j@9D*
zkR!Sbc|B8*Zjmv(6cR#O=DXv%s}`Mx>5r=lPHyVW#oPd8!;sJs0Q;2?VJK%EFIM_I
zb{hW<DbA!Y?&P+hs(smW$}h}P_AFO5vPrV;&x(cPoswh)b*VP+#pCk1h@{jwaGZ5E
zs*v=-<s*uCI$Fh)OcP14@Nz61G>X|&L($|!Q-kQWFm66^(C5_gkZ3kj>a;#rUr3A~
zbJCLo%t_#Dz#80J*HVdk_M)q03~cR{S(|&|^yjxQ4M(?1xaZ(Du}u7Cx;O6KW#&#@
zKy#SE=h`1*pdqC6T4#pz^yTF$?XaCC1idEnB~KXf??;*Sl%WiPRD3AcDtq>>Z&Qme
z2e=qUu^%H?2Dc`#a3MmC*$buBDZ(7s-!f;4m9V23U43U0fjCmh38op*hJBt^or41a
zjq2DO!2+VRo%`kcJ87s-Mdc(hNO;-mYE6ts)az<x`(xMJfel34m*)&?H#hT$#{Q~u
zIR!nwHv^-nL&rnBj%bvWG}httO;v*Oe4r8a2MGU8EJ<4Q$8<-U%oQy>Z#xmo!fhc&
zE`1voQZ^eFg|x?2Q6rf+E@b|FMt3kIpKfYo^`!7cJzdoxxaLvnm~{t_jC8|3LOG`}
zVVAJs2txHQTChIb|H)Y0Ubnx7-gV0ra7fYbI|RXtN=-{sXc0i-L;O8hgt=RMa}^#U
z>#0NM<uIhW*!JURkLrabo=Ampi9e@k(tG9H5gb49vl3t@&JOCgF5_m~z^RekkRE`^
z>a6V+7~C(PR@*O(UQE>m>546LWX>=^x58Flp(U_$%>_-_@i1h2TH^grxM(;X!@?8h
zD@^v9DK~s-LgcSEmwB~aFdRy`r^O&WYUVMGB*a~OOlgdx>g?I&%r2;&Rm2{42uY-U
zx7YW(8gP6^i5~D?>hRm(t*3XWydP<%dvuD7_(3t}AYJpIrvaX$m&3o!0&Z^n0-kE1
ziS18F80Qx>+xXK!;3=kQg&*U;41tW;{*P1tCqpb+1S>3<v#_ME?eAG>5BKKPom@Oh
z#NOTAdx)O%Md61=>P#8vix`!pM{gx2xlHyJHZkXp$zv1^>$zq)(Wm=Z0B!hvN7Md%
zKf?Yi7vyop4WeLeoLta1V%f&W(ku6J4xtTAq4#Ztcg!$4SgaTxNl4~WNl}dWKTi$*
zlucVx7nWW=T=6C%O;JA-w$kjuG{rN!>LY)&{xyNIMdSApE|YJICB3f{<0zpt-iSLL
zmICPU-n%-Is3#ZWHsH@8w}uU4SbsFnb;LaI#fO4dDZ~*mz>h=2D_`p6fM<j-u;1xl
z9>k%7;$r`uR~m_ZvP7`I!S5en#{8QS3wMAVGr%hRP>PjS)RxsQ3H$M$)!_X*fa0}N
z`)4k#eMCcG`GIxoS~*A?l~_GnR-|$(gcZ-V;&yZ$#ePui+|Z*04@&M>++8tQP4&5Y
zXVr3xUOr0kgdd>KRgutLDbeZCkOK`p{g}<O&rC1*oDZfCCJo^G)xg9UCYWT?Ov-BK
z05fQbD<a7m+aRs#LQ9k9Gh9kss^eH2ux}l#on|Udcbw2ts**|W;1|K<yaCW*BwN~0
zqnX<7xz#N`G6(jwQI6iv=pKhm=_upL>poEjDKWUjOR}EFaKIBxc%QPs+f7ths{qg0
zY?DSPj)EEzEBF;AJRUq@!%Z{UtI!XKqamK#ho^x*rV9TRkEAIphA<yoQ;!0w`<AY(
z2;1I;79*CG!`Cu2y{wrjj-@_>@Zr|H;akxQuB@5w0*!iluheU36xSRSV+hR4ST<~x
ziE#iB^+sl_Dwu^{u+lgvF@Xf>yvn2)c<SGM*BzdRDBrz_2paSX_gS1l+BaawAIW!X
zkug~LhE$gK+S&Y?mCfLP<C5W7)jNrqL+DDie6tY4oHj-4@v9gQ?$&e}CFO?AKYCWj
zW48QPDs_LQvcfRB+2%Kr?7xlQe0NpAQ(X=W(*A2JKMutrwfs^p3tp&4Lmbf{>3hLW
zig+j94Mm1B(NZDlT9@}1)e}&~xxi2V3%)Vb49`|W;6Ft(XujmPq)Z&KR{ParK<j1J
zEz7oFI=5NN?40Qz7N=`jc<Oia1VfyW`m2MhbNnZ7i5U_zwpxqv`7-m5r=1(e+a{kv
zPv|8dAo<Q6XXxVZ$vo2O=a=CUkKUIq^|@Q4Py0FT`wv|qSw|ZzGuPf(N8ok6O9$W1
zU^wleW@f<+e6Uq@oQ<u^1NyZg+EqOKnlB8VGWwLJNJxW)jFD9fBvz56T|>V2r?#Ld
z%9hn=pcM5o3Zw&MQ$`zdJ}9U^IW~vJAiW9py?6c1^2vJ~7ao;=K1NcdPZw)eoWYe^
zf`Y>*pk3_hdvl+KH)qQeC^#d2^@2HyNCJMEm$nRT+w${Py{XQkbyC;me(jRV`8w78
zC!B2&##UTc^9oCkS(+1!`KqYzU>h9%F*Ew`;z16Q3k5ayH%_{ClP9Xwi*-V|Y==r1
zf0Lu}Av)w|=e3P$&!W==E-;*2;f&pO=wF6ZcqY=0%a(n1j@%VKq2CbC(>(#5oZV4D
zf|ZlBK_X)*cy2DfF#wsBLE)>%huh!h9^n#sV^gQ>)Z=92@CS!>=5gq^u$ni8v^rQy
zyxaN;=<yts>Dl;RbW)D~)C|<RNU;UuHkDLNBW5C~Y|6nf`Np|K+*W3Ecl$<wo-|cf
z$i7OTDNOFih5+y}3)*TN_hE}JM*wg6&A>uI6Fsz{P4%uy2_kG+QCMs%p;SCX_NL4n
zeQVxDU98nucu;rN|G^IU#jED`+5SQk_jAeHMBm3s8qnzK5Ake+8EU8#uZlC;98S<U
zM9^8W@=NQy&e3z#VZ3f8=a-#MG*Uw_R>Vqc*JRr0LK(rFm9O_%bV)GuVkdOy%WC-e
zJis5wFMdyL{+o1Kjo|phkFneu2+5I)o5Og+1=UJpc-PQnUAg?2dP{oFdF2wzdFwR_
z#|LC&Y~>-;xbo6(EFG#o(|D;~wr}<q`^6XUstXSZj_0hE+A1`h9#66f#Eg(~bxgM>
z!zvPGs+f?1@4QZp4CdG7BxGbb`p5-Hj@;dFMyuQO!B3cuovRcgY`&dw-p)>;OOM3k
z%7Dg9LZ~-cGsw00L$iqHyXb61cx4Xk*vtL1UzwKGv{T0tDYT>fDBJgj%BrdTLxk8)
zSpcko(I_-pS}Y&T^)4V5)28Fu_r>wVhQgn|IBE>PbVkh{)|q9*?KEEu;WsdV`5J>;
z&JXoCKf<d)DZgEuMrJlvP`@dhwX3BYRvzsR)>Dsc%q2*vRWux&C3e%E^1h_m=U%QU
zt!2H2#jEkxXG6I^I+X?2uwT@syXCWq8tPja{kaf$l*hhG?<-fZBb&s>`-CT~{}oC%
zxJcyYUPAZFWjWZf@?ws{wjF;0^z6{-8LG65IlV=nK4qLb9YOjcwmJ^77eu_&-{?(Q
z%9ZN&+j18$=cqaQ413y9Z}uTXn$zv9p=%H;mIJTobu85MmEy!4cS4QOwU#wEPsY#A
zLT?Kp_QUtqOmN}p8}<3l0e5~P{+fY%135akV%BFHBC6?!vHJJzsLS@6VX}0k;+Mo%
z!VK|-8T-b5uC5HC?i+*cWcnVjyu8FZrEUQ;1hK6AJT`grL7LpWT8G&VRmHMES_C7v
zx~I>30Z}Lk;=J7*HH)a%i#Jj>$*C-stlYd{iQv&IYbG`C+Zu!IkG-1PiS4hwXkCUW
zYi6o_Pl`95!#(j;wd4k_a6TGV<2RC{9V9}VuBnnivC=@1wXVwybfqQt!MaGYoR*24
zY6nH`7c-@WlSmHzce1Q>2yAsLEWtUvNTYT42IyC{ncY&L&@c{!e0x`!L(04?KJ_P`
zX*_32mC-{9d%XSN7C4tTs9U>R^RLx8+rVXlFi8?PoE{G^io4=+Zc7B#79Igw+1+M-
zOnCwk<xsoBOl#QAOo;RvK(1xcX>zyo&3)n^^Y|(m`g5Y6NM1kC&O(!}uFAq{Nzwif
z)c9y^y+<my-#O8sxUD(kQUGH6@{LgPjXq)1h5}1H#+~lM^$zy)Q6qn8R49EJr5ho*
zzUTugdC&gckgbM8YzCldOMz=Mhbq{ko_5ibbUT=0Z|iHUB&PJa#A|h~*j2zsB84A9
zEjoB*g!W?O&sy=zs?^CfdcPV)6RR_=F|K=$<N-)hjZ$|ObgQFI1x%SQbaQlFNg1nf
z)$OhIvzLnC&AlK>h4;8Hz`E<JuZ^KD15Z#z5E@EmjG`ib1^8_*2Y~`%V@*Py5Cd1A
z=?~NsxIiBZrl29%7H-j}fFV){FYJrMkn(|Z_KQIM=C^2W5Yyp!OOneKL2kASC3+v;
z&8}S0<<s8n&h7FhE1$h>d?*?8khe<d20BJU#AM81n4uD&f3}f%E8jK^R!6NTubTGn
z0(O1g3W<SwF8D^#XzuVLO^VAFW@?q@Q@_w;O`z9T_O#<3Y!B`*I<NUzB=rGP!wQ&2
zfEy|pu=Qd*;@Aj+S+hF%o)qH`dOAGxMjWzu?{^a^!6EZZ1Lz=Cyu4r%%M!6s&j(t8
z`c}m*FkqkqIwfWDwsA)ZoJywO@|d+br9J@KPM-EXhU;w+n%<AsH$w@zUU0;CD5she
zmN!~X4Vo=mJelq+&G`a|71eH!3c3;AyN6aR{6q)yM=>=RTfy7~-eM%yWyase{~TOG
zlXjgAEFB2VYr;!PRCH3-<UWWdHcsXyO0)a&Q-gj-ah_^UmnXCXjFOHW5}G{A>4h%#
z5uXfB-jYEC4K&%*&V`xx2Wpi_dFJAak@V`Bcb?zCwW))iIvHyPv{Fk;-XGhLh0wk+
z$MRMSEFhx25?tzHfVF@jr!+0ft&Sd13ZgX>QJ7~<v|>wKd&^B7<2_0Wjp2w4D-RF9
zyY2lv4AMI0{bCrT!PPKO%OXQ#9PVtY*F6TLBqr)hD7G<M_BH)`e~`3yE{nM5Y&n&~
z>JO4dLo?K~Wu2x~%F6n6B>J)+I&4$$Q%J1hY}xMtY#7<CGgUcS%8z7t56*i!)D#5D
zjSQU`hU86-7uPw?#(FB`1Y2h2HK7TTJ^$<l{+S1j_}_C|7>rn!O#~tJ!)wBpO)<YF
zp4iu3N7<Tv3@cC>RgA6uGGlK)2*0Y8kzTmH7@RzQ@dH7m7~xFa;V1eT+SW_uRHwn?
zsj7e5Vh7WxgO|~P)o!}T6uMo#`Iywye8pVZxE|UmKyp_@EAFfw$jyA3$NI<PLV_nd
z(wU3fByT%saC^VyfP~+B8q3@zjaL#CTv!e5@?0-+dE5unBgJ0@#I1$8qCabBJjw<{
zUfi98G-6*|jQ~T?arEA9fr=-2c4oD{F_G&p5IEdnw8=QfJZ)20Hi=w*_pra~41d=%
zxWEdmqD%hUN2?u~wbH1?*4wRrwiW)KX6S`LgMHkcF+JT7*BvQbRwvDE4Uw{`OEg3h
z1Kwl6uyn4A=bMl15~7lSJ0l5vZiq_WPTWpRK$KsE&ruX?FDNGNC?YKG<RC2M<R~iQ
z<m3RBe*OPVzy*g5p`b~m08EeK-RapspR7V0jeod0ay3G>a~nbYcs06}hMeh?3RNG~
z1&4s^7$151Zt_EfdqN)8#Akw%_@iV~;{_uoUIg+Hl<;AZ@V%I>d*V-TyHz$#;YLYj
zhb3YQXt5)CJ1}stZR_$x=1?{cw(`rBy>(y*MfqGSt-DH)25QdysP2r}BuA<!FEpSU
zqfk2_&o&V6uGBLaZLz#7K~kvkoHuZh{+S;G;h&->hwCtT_P1d6D8&&N_ed-adkiys
zw4rKrfRC&|sjN6k7Ryi`XsAFaBo9I<2sSBj1t`1=POcICb7^sH4N@-PX7%G{eS|9Z
zXj+;2mwyLCOh&=oYJ@`$8>;TIcaR#jQ#v=mKdTk9Nr!W;fN$SwXFGFwTtl{QOx@KG
zJ<YM(JF@OpUaL)=enI8UEJ1YU(jl#Li|NDcH7`RRCe72Yc<mpakd#ZI;L9WI{{w|j
Bud4t6

diff --git a/notes.html b/notes.html
index 7b4dc24..d08f27d 100644
--- a/notes.html
+++ b/notes.html
@@ -307,9 +307,9 @@ <h1 class="title">Notes</h1>
 <span class="listing-categories">cases, brainstorming</span>
 </td>
 </tr>
-<tr data-index="1" data-categories="cmVhZGluZyUyQ2dlbmVyYWwlMjB0aG91Z2h0cw==" data-listing-date-sort="1736744400000" data-listing-file-modified-sort="1739828241395" data-listing-date-modified-sort="1739828241000" data-listing-reading-time-sort="58" data-listing-word-count-sort="11431" data-listing-title-sort="Methodology notes" data-listing-filename-sort="methodology-notes.qmd">
+<tr data-index="1" data-categories="cmVhZGluZyUyQ2dlbmVyYWwlMjB0aG91Z2h0cw==" data-listing-date-sort="1736744400000" data-listing-file-modified-sort="1739984708319" data-listing-date-modified-sort="1739984708000" data-listing-reading-time-sort="64" data-listing-word-count-sort="12713" data-listing-title-sort="Methodology notes" data-listing-filename-sort="methodology-notes.qmd">
 <td>
-<span class="listing-date-modified">Feb 17, 2025</span>
+<span class="listing-date-modified">Feb 19, 2025</span>
 </td>
 <td>
 <a href="./notes/methodology-notes.html" class="title listing-title">Methodology notes</a>
diff --git a/notes/methodology-notes.html b/notes/methodology-notes.html
index 29c6e93..975d461 100644
--- a/notes/methodology-notes.html
+++ b/notes/methodology-notes.html
@@ -276,8 +276,8 @@ <h2 id="toc-title">On this page</h2>
   <li><a href="#rebuttals-by-glaser" id="toc-rebuttals-by-glaser" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#rebuttals-by-glaser">Rebuttals by Glaser</a></li>
   <li><a href="#on-the-utility-of-grounded-theory" id="toc-on-the-utility-of-grounded-theory" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#on-the-utility-of-grounded-theory">On the <em>utility</em> of grounded theory</a></li>
   </ul></li>
-  <li><a href="#theoretical-sampling" id="toc-theoretical-sampling" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#theoretical-sampling">Theoretical sampling</a></li>
   </ul></li>
+  <li><a href="#theoretical-sampling" id="toc-theoretical-sampling" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#theoretical-sampling">Theoretical sampling</a></li>
   </ul></li>
   <li><a href="#data-collection" id="toc-data-collection" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#data-collection">Data Collection</a>
   <ul>
@@ -286,15 +286,14 @@ <h2 id="toc-title">On this page</h2>
   <li><a href="#structured-interviewing" id="toc-structured-interviewing" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#structured-interviewing">Structured interviewing</a></li>
   <li><a href="#group-interviews" id="toc-group-interviews" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#group-interviews">Group interviews</a></li>
   <li><a href="#unstructured-interviewing" id="toc-unstructured-interviewing" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#unstructured-interviewing">Unstructured interviewing</a></li>
+  <li><a href="#new-takes-on-interviewing" id="toc-new-takes-on-interviewing" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#new-takes-on-interviewing">“New” takes on interviewing</a></li>
   <li><a href="#transcribing" id="toc-transcribing" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#transcribing">Transcribing</a>
   <ul class="collapse">
   <li><a href="#transcript-notation" id="toc-transcript-notation" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#transcript-notation">Transcript notation</a></li>
   <li><a href="#cleaning-audio" id="toc-cleaning-audio" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#cleaning-audio">Cleaning audio</a></li>
   </ul></li>
   </ul></li>
-  <li><a href="#observations" id="toc-observations" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#observations">Observations</a></li>
   <li><a href="#field-notes" id="toc-field-notes" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#field-notes">Field notes</a></li>
-  <li><a href="#recording-video" id="toc-recording-video" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#recording-video">Recording video</a></li>
   <li><a href="#focus-groups" id="toc-focus-groups" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#focus-groups">Focus groups</a></li>
   </ul></li>
   <li><a href="#qda" id="toc-qda" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#qda">QDA</a>
@@ -302,12 +301,14 @@ <h2 id="toc-title">On this page</h2>
   <li><a href="#sensitizing-concepts" id="toc-sensitizing-concepts" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#sensitizing-concepts">Sensitizing concepts</a></li>
   <li><a href="#coding" id="toc-coding" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#coding">Coding</a></li>
   <li><a href="#memos" id="toc-memos" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#memos">Memos</a></li>
+  <li><a href="#analysis" id="toc-analysis" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#analysis">Analysis</a>
+  <ul>
   <li><a href="#preliminary-analyses" id="toc-preliminary-analyses" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#preliminary-analyses">Preliminary analyses</a></li>
   <li><a href="#analytical-strategies-and-techniques" id="toc-analytical-strategies-and-techniques" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#analytical-strategies-and-techniques">Analytical strategies and techniques</a></li>
   <li><a href="#the-constant-comparative-method" id="toc-the-constant-comparative-method" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#the-constant-comparative-method">The constant comparative method</a></li>
   <li><a href="#situational-analysis" id="toc-situational-analysis" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#situational-analysis">Situational analysis</a></li>
-  <li><a href="#statistical-methods" id="toc-statistical-methods" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#statistical-methods">Statistical methods</a></li>
-  <li><a href="#on-software" id="toc-on-software" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#on-software">On software</a></li>
+  </ul></li>
+  <li><a href="#qda-software-and-tooling" id="toc-qda-software-and-tooling" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#qda-software-and-tooling">QDA software and tooling</a></li>
   </ul></li>
   <li><a href="#writing" id="toc-writing" class="nav-link" data-scroll-target="#writing">Writing</a></li>
   </ul>
@@ -345,7 +346,7 @@ <h1 class="title">Methodology notes</h1>
     <div>
     <div class="quarto-title-meta-heading">Modified</div>
     <div class="quarto-title-meta-contents">
-      <p class="date-modified">February 17, 2025</p>
+      <p class="date-modified">February 19, 2025</p>
     </div>
   </div>
     
@@ -454,7 +455,7 @@ <h4 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="yins-approach">Yin’s Approach</h4>
 <h4 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="logistics-of-case-study-design">Logistics of case study design</h4>
 <section id="preparing-to-select-case-study-data" class="level5">
 <h5 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="preparing-to-select-case-study-data">Preparing to select case study data</h5>
-<p>Yin <span class="citation" data-cites="yin2014">(<a href="#ref-yin2014" role="doc-biblioref">2014</a>: 72-23)</span> identifies five desired attributes for collecting case studt data:</p>
+<p>Yin <span class="citation" data-cites="yin2014">(<a href="#ref-yin2014" role="doc-biblioref">2014</a>: 72-73)</span> identifies five desired attributes for collecting case studt data:</p>
 <ol type="1">
 <li>Ask good questions — and interpret answers fairly.</li>
 </ol>
@@ -681,8 +682,9 @@ <h5 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="on-the-utility-of-grounded-theory">On the <
 <p>It also echoes Charmaz’s vision of grounded theory as a powerful too, and Bryant’s <span class="citation" data-cites="bryant2003">(<a href="#ref-bryant2003" role="doc-biblioref">2003</a>)</span> call to “look at what Glaser and Strauss actually did, rather than what they claimed — and continued to claim — they were doing” to uncover “the basis for a powerful research approach”. <span class="citation" data-cites="bryant2003">Bryant (<a href="#ref-bryant2003" role="doc-biblioref">2003</a>)</span> further cites <span class="citation" data-cites="baszanger1997">Baszanger and Dodier (<a href="#ref-baszanger1997" role="doc-biblioref">1997</a>)</span>, who characterize grounded theory as a method “consisting of accumulating a series of individual cases, of analyzing them as a combination between different logics of action that coexist not only in the field under consideration, but even within these individuals or during their encounters”. <span class="citation" data-cites="bryant2003">Bryant (<a href="#ref-bryant2003" role="doc-biblioref">2003</a>)</span> summarizes this by stating that “[t]he aim of such methods is generalization rather than totalization, with the objective of producing”a combinative inventory of possible situations”.</p>
 </section>
 </section>
-<section id="theoretical-sampling" class="level4">
-<h4 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="theoretical-sampling">Theoretical sampling</h4>
+</section>
+<section id="theoretical-sampling" class="level3">
+<h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="theoretical-sampling">Theoretical sampling</h3>
 <p>See <span class="citation" data-cites="charmaz2000">Charmaz (<a href="#ref-charmaz2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>)</span>: 519-520.</p>
 <p>From Clarke <span class="citation" data-cites="clarke2003">(<a href="#ref-clarke2003" role="doc-biblioref">2003</a>: 557)</span>:</p>
 <blockquote class="blockquote">
@@ -690,7 +692,6 @@ <h4 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="theoretical-sampling">Theoretical sampling<
 </blockquote>
 </section>
 </section>
-</section>
 <section id="data-collection" class="level2">
 <h2 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="data-collection">Data Collection</h2>
 <section id="interviews" class="level3">
@@ -700,7 +701,7 @@ <h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="interviews">Interviews</h3>
 <blockquote class="blockquote">
 <p>A constructivist approach necessitates a relationship with respondents in which they can cast their stories in their terms. It means listening to their stories with openness to feeling and experience. … Furthermore, one-shot interviewing lends itself to a partial, sanitized view of experience, cleaned up for public discourse. The very structure of an interview may preclude private thoughts and feelings from emerging. Such a structure reinforces whatever proclivities a respondent has to tell only the public version of the story. Researchers’ sustained involvement with research participants lessens these problems.</p>
 </blockquote>
-<p><span class="citation" data-cites="fontana2000">Fontana and Frey (<a href="#ref-fontana2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>)</span> spend some time writing about the emergence of an “interview society”, whereby interviews are commonly used to seek various forms of biographical information. They cite <span class="citation" data-cites="holstein1998">(<a href="#ref-holstein1998" role="doc-biblioref"><strong>holstein1998?</strong></a>)</span>, who noted that “the interview has become a means of contemporary storytelling, where persons divulge life accounts in response to interview inquiries”. They then go over a brief history of interviewing in the context of sociological research, which largely tracks the values underlying positivist and postmodernist transitions as you might expect.</p>
+<p><span class="citation" data-cites="fontana2000">Fontana and Frey (<a href="#ref-fontana2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>)</span> spend some time writing about the emergence of an “interview society”, whereby interviews are commonly used to seek various forms of biographical information. They cite <span class="citation" data-cites="gubrium1998">Gubrium and Holstein (<a href="#ref-gubrium1998" role="doc-biblioref">1998</a>)</span>, who noted that “the interview has become a means of contemporary storytelling, where persons divulge life accounts in response to interview inquiries”. They then go over a brief history of interviewing in the context of sociological research, which largely tracks the values underlying positivist and postmodernist transitions as you might expect.</p>
 <section id="structured-interviewing" class="level4">
 <h4 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="structured-interviewing">Structured interviewing</h4>
 <p>From Fontana and Frey <span class="citation" data-cites="fontana2000">(<a href="#ref-fontana2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>: 649-651)</span>:</p>
@@ -732,12 +733,16 @@ <h4 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="group-interviews">Group interviews</h4>
 <h4 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="unstructured-interviewing">Unstructured interviewing</h4>
 <p>From Fontana and Frey <span class="citation" data-cites="fontana2000">(<a href="#ref-fontana2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>: 652-657)</span>:</p>
 <p>The essence of an unstructured interview is establishing a human-to-human relation with the respondent and a desire to <em>understand</em> rather than to <em>explain</em>.</p>
-<p><span class="citation" data-cites="fontana">(<a href="#ref-fontana" role="doc-biblioref"><strong>fontana?</strong></a>)</span> then goes on with some practical guidance on how to engage in unstructured interviews, largely concerned with how to access a community and relate with respondents.</p>
+<p><span class="citation" data-cites="fontana2000">Fontana and Frey (<a href="#ref-fontana2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>)</span> then goes on with some practical guidance on how to engage in unstructured interviews, largely concerned with how to access a community and relate with respondents.</p>
+</section>
+<section id="new-takes-on-interviewing" class="level4">
+<h4 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="new-takes-on-interviewing">“New” takes on interviewing</h4>
+<p><span class="citation" data-cites="fontana2000">Fontana and Frey (<a href="#ref-fontana2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>)</span> address some “new” takes on interviewing emerging from the postmodern turn. I kinda think there is some potential behind approaches that emphasize interviews as negotiated accomplishment, or product of communal sensemaking between interviewer and respondent. I think it could be really helpful in the context of my research, which is very concerned with drawing out tensions that respondents have in mind but are not really able to articulate in a systematic way.</p>
+<p>However, <span class="citation" data-cites="fontana2000">Fontana and Frey (<a href="#ref-fontana2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>)</span> also draws attention to crticism of highly engaged interviewing approaches, which seem to equate closeness with the respondent as getting closer to their “true self”, and which may not actually be fixed (especially in the context of the artificial environment of the interview setting). Critiques of such “closeness” use the term “romantic” or “crusading” as epithets. Moreover, there is additional reference to the culturally-embedded assumption that interviews are necessarily valuable sources of information, as if speaking ones mind can adequately convey one’s thoughts and experiences — this is criticized as a particularly western approach to information extraction surrounding internalized and externalized thoughts and behaviour, as instilled through participation in the “interview society” addressed earlier in the text.</p>
 </section>
 <section id="transcribing" class="level4">
 <h4 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="transcribing">Transcribing</h4>
 <p>This section describes how I transcibe interviews and accounts for the decisions to encode certain things and not others. It goes on to explains the procedures for transcribing spoken dialog into textual formats, including the notation applied to encode idiosyncratic elements of conversational speech.</p>
-<p>Check out <span class="citation" data-cites="silverman2000">Silverman (<a href="#ref-silverman2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>)</span>, who writes about the nuanced challenges of working with and between verbal and textual media, and what this means for transcription.</p>
 <section id="transcript-notation" class="level5">
 <h5 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="transcript-notation">Transcript notation</h5>
 <p>Derived from the <a href="https://zackbatist.info/notes/E-CURATORS/#transcription">transcription protocol applied for the E-CURATORS project</a>.</p>
@@ -757,17 +762,10 @@ <h5 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="cleaning-audio">Cleaning audio</h5>
 </section>
 </section>
 </section>
-<section id="observations" class="level3">
-<h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="observations">Observations</h3>
-<p>See <span class="citation" data-cites="angrosino2000">Angrosino and Mays de Pérez (<a href="#ref-angrosino2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>)</span></p>
-</section>
 <section id="field-notes" class="level3">
 <h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="field-notes">Field notes</h3>
 <p>See <span class="citation" data-cites="yin2014">(<a href="#ref-yin2014" role="doc-biblioref">Yin 2014</a>: 124-125)</span></p>
 </section>
-<section id="recording-video" class="level3">
-<h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="recording-video">Recording video</h3>
-</section>
 <section id="focus-groups" class="level3">
 <h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="focus-groups">Focus groups</h3>
 <p>From <span class="citation" data-cites="kitzinger1994">Kitzinger (<a href="#ref-kitzinger1994" role="doc-biblioref">1994</a>)</span>; <span class="citation" data-cites="wilkinson1998">Wilkinson (<a href="#ref-wilkinson1998" role="doc-biblioref">1998</a>)</span>; <span class="citation" data-cites="parker2006">Parker and Tritter (<a href="#ref-parker2006" role="doc-biblioref">2006</a>)</span>; <span class="citation" data-cites="morgan2018b">Morgan and Hoffman (<a href="#ref-morgan2018b" role="doc-biblioref">2018</a>)</span>.</p>
@@ -916,8 +914,10 @@ <h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="coding">Coding</h3>
 <h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="memos">Memos</h3>
 <p>Saldana chapter 2 on “analytic memos”</p>
 </section>
-<section id="preliminary-analyses" class="level3">
-<h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="preliminary-analyses">Preliminary analyses</h3>
+<section id="analysis" class="level3 page-columns page-full">
+<h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="analysis">Analysis</h3>
+<section id="preliminary-analyses" class="level4">
+<h4 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="preliminary-analyses">Preliminary analyses</h4>
 <p>Yin <span class="citation" data-cites="yin2014">(<a href="#ref-yin2014" role="doc-biblioref">2014</a>: 135-136 5)</span> identifies various strategies for analyzing case study evidence.</p>
 <blockquote class="blockquote">
 <p>A helpful starting point is to “play” with your data. You are searching for patterns, insights, or concepts that seem promising. <span class="citation" data-cites="yin2014">(<a href="#ref-yin2014" role="doc-biblioref">Yin 2014</a>: 135)</span></p>
@@ -932,8 +932,8 @@ <h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="preliminary-analyses">Preliminary analyses<
 </ul>
 <p>Yin <span class="citation" data-cites="yin2014">(<a href="#ref-yin2014" role="doc-biblioref">2014</a>: 135)</span> also emphasizes memo-writing as a core strategy at this stage, citing <span class="citation" data-cites="corbin2014">Corbin and Strauss (<a href="#ref-corbin2014" role="doc-biblioref">2014</a>)</span>. These memos should include hints, clues and suggestions that simply put into writing any preliminary interpretation, essentially conceptualizing your data. He uses the specific example of shower thoughts.</p>
 </section>
-<section id="analytical-strategies-and-techniques" class="level3 page-columns page-full">
-<h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="analytical-strategies-and-techniques">Analytical strategies and techniques</h3>
+<section id="analytical-strategies-and-techniques" class="level4 page-columns page-full">
+<h4 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="analytical-strategies-and-techniques">Analytical strategies and techniques</h4>
 <p>Yin <span class="citation" data-cites="yin2014">(<a href="#ref-yin2014" role="doc-biblioref">2014</a>: 136-142)</span> then goes on to describe four general strategies:</p>
 <ol type="1">
 <li>Relying on theoretical propositions</li>
@@ -951,13 +951,13 @@ <h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="analytical-strategies-and-techniques">Analy
 </ol>
 <p><span class="citation" data-cites="ryan2000">Ryan and Bernard (<a href="#ref-ryan2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>)</span> describe various analysis techniques for analyzing textual elicitations in structured and codified ways.</p>
 </section>
-<section id="the-constant-comparative-method" class="level3">
-<h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="the-constant-comparative-method">The constant comparative method</h3>
+<section id="the-constant-comparative-method" class="level4">
+<h4 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="the-constant-comparative-method">The constant comparative method</h4>
 <p>The constant comparative method is based on action codes, similar to what <span class="citation" data-cites="saldana2016">Saldaña (<a href="#ref-saldana2016" role="doc-biblioref">2016</a>)</span> refers to as process codes. According to Charmaz <span class="citation" data-cites="charmaz2000">(<a href="#ref-charmaz2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>: 515)</span>: &gt; The constant comparative method of grounded theory means (a) comparing different people (such as their views, situations, actions, accounts, and experiences), (b) comparing data from the same individuals with themselves at different points in time, (c) comparing incident with incident, (d) comparing data with categori, and (e) comparing categories with other categories.</p>
 <p>My initial impression is that this is very well suited for Stake’s <span class="citation" data-cites="stake2006">(<a href="#ref-stake2006" role="doc-biblioref">2006</a>)</span> multicase study framework, specifically with regards to his notion of the case-quintain dilemma. It also seems very well suited for analysis of situational meaning-making, as per <span class="citation" data-cites="suchman1987">Suchman (<a href="#ref-suchman1987" role="doc-biblioref">1987</a>)</span>, <span class="citation" data-cites="lave1991">Lave and Wenger (<a href="#ref-lave1991" role="doc-biblioref">1991</a>)</span>, <span class="citation" data-cites="knorrcetina2001">Knorr Cetina (<a href="#ref-knorrcetina2001" role="doc-biblioref">2001</a>)</span> and symbolic interactionism at large.</p>
 </section>
-<section id="situational-analysis" class="level3">
-<h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="situational-analysis">Situational analysis</h3>
+<section id="situational-analysis" class="level4">
+<h4 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="situational-analysis">Situational analysis</h4>
 <p>Situational analysis originates from Strauss’s social worlds/arenas/negotiations framework. From Clarke <span class="citation" data-cites="clarke2003">(<a href="#ref-clarke2003" role="doc-biblioref">2003</a>: 554)</span>:</p>
 <blockquote class="blockquote">
 <p>Building on and extending Strauss’s work, situational analyses offer three main cartographic approaches:</p>
@@ -967,15 +967,40 @@ <h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="situational-analysis">Situational analysis<
 <li>positional maps that lay out the major positions taken, and not taken, in the data vis-à-vis particular discursive axes of variation and difference, con cern, and controversy surrounding complicated issues in the situation.</li>
 </ol>
 </blockquote>
-<p>Refer to highlighted sections in <span class="citation" data-cites="clarke2003">Clarke (<a href="#ref-clarke2003" role="doc-biblioref">2003</a>)</span>, bring those over at some point.</p>
+<p>Clarke <span class="citation" data-cites="clarke2003">(<a href="#ref-clarke2003" role="doc-biblioref">2003</a>: 560)</span> identifies the main purpose of situational data as a way of “opening up” the data, figuing out where and how to enter:</p>
+<blockquote class="blockquote">
+<p>Although they may do so, a major and perhaps the major use for them is “opening up” the data –— interrogating them in fresh ways. As researchers, we constantly confront the problem of “where and how to enter.” Doing situational analyses offers new paths into the full array of data sources and lays out in various ways what you have to date. These approaches should be considered analytic exercises — constituting an ongoing research “work out” of sorts—well into the research trajectory. Their most important outcome is provoking the researcher to analyze more deeply.</p>
+</blockquote>
+<p>She emphasizes that this is meant to stimulate thinking, and should always be paired with comprehensive memoing before, during and after situation mapping excercises.</p>
+<p>A key feature that I think is invaluable is the ability to uncover the <em>sites of silence</em>, or the things that I as a researcher suspect are there but are not readily visible in my evidence. Situational analysis is useful for drawing out the thousand pound gorillas in the room that no one wants to talk about, and is therefore important for identifying things to address during continual data collection, as is one of the (often ignored) central pillars of grounded theory:</p>
+<blockquote class="blockquote">
+<p>The fourth and last caveat is perhaps the most radical. As trained scholars in our varied fields, usually with some theoretical background, we may also suspect that certain things may be going on that have not yet explicitly appeared in our data. As ethically accountable researchers, I believe we need to attempt to articulate what we see as the <em>sites of silence</em> in our data. What seems present but unarticulated? What thousand-pound gorillas are sitting around in our situations of concern that nobody has bothered to mention as yet (Zerubavel 2002)? Why not? How might we pursue these sites of silence and ask about the gorillas without putting words in the mouths of our participants? These are very important directions for theoretical sampling. That is, the usefulness of the approaches elucidated here consists partly in helping the researcher think systematically through the design of research, espe cially decisions regarding future data to collect.</p>
+</blockquote>
+<p>The process is remarkably similar to <a href="https://wiki.zackbatist.info/index.php/February_5,_2020_brainstorm">the brainstorming excercise</a> I did with Costis one time. Starts by articulating the actors involved, their roles and relationships, the things they do, the things they make.</p>
+<blockquote class="blockquote">
+<p>The goal here is to lay out as best one can all the human and nonhuman elements in the situation of concern of the research broadly conceived. In the Meadian sense, the questions are: Who and what are in this situation? Who and what matters in this situation? What elements “make a difference” in this situation?</p>
+</blockquote>
+<p>After jotting these down on a canvas or whiteboard, arrange them into more concrete categories. In each category, refer to examples or specific instances. Concepts can occur in multiple categories. By arranging these concepts, grouping them thematically, spatially, and through relationships and associations with arrows or lines (presumably, with labels indicating the nature of these relationships), this provides the researcher with a viable way of unlocking new pathways to think through their data. I imagine this will be especially helpful when arranging or re-arranging the coding tree.</p>
+<p>Clarke <span class="citation" data-cites="clarke2003">(<a href="#ref-clarke2003" role="doc-biblioref">2003</a>: 569-570)</span> also dedicates a few paragraphs to relational forms of analysis using this technique:</p>
+<blockquote class="blockquote">
+<p>Relations among the various elements are key. You might not think to ask about certain relations, but if you do what I think of as quick and dirty relational analyses with the situational map, they can be revealing. The procedure here is to take each element in turn and think about it in relation to each other element on the map. One does this by circling one element and mentally or literally drawing lines, one at a time, between it and every other ele ment on the map and specifying the nature of the relationship by describing the nature of that line.</p>
+</blockquote>
+<blockquote class="blockquote">
+<p>You could highlight (in blue perhaps) that organization’s perspectives on all the other actors to see which actors are attended to <em>and which are not</em>, as well as the actual contents of the organization’s discourses on its “others.” Silences can thus be made to speak.</p>
+</blockquote>
+<p>Clarke <span class="citation" data-cites="clarke2003">(<a href="#ref-clarke2003" role="doc-biblioref">2003</a>: 569)</span> On how to generate memos from situational analysis:</p>
+<blockquote class="blockquote">
+<p>Each map in turn should lead to a memo about the relations diagrammed. At early stages of analysis, such memos should be partial and tentative, full of questions to be answered about the nature and range of particular sets of social relations, rather than being answers in and of themselves.</p>
+</blockquote>
+<p>Clarke <span class="citation" data-cites="clarke2003">(<a href="#ref-clarke2003" role="doc-biblioref">2003</a>: 570)</span> addresses the energy or mood required to do this kind of work, which is reminiscient of Yin’s <span class="citation" data-cites="yin2014">(<a href="#ref-yin2014" role="doc-biblioref">2014</a>: 73-74)</span> description of the “mental and emotional exhaustion at the end of each fieldwork day, due to the depletion of ‘analytic energy’ associated with being attention on your toes.” Interesting that the mention of “freshness” is brought up in the context of Glaser’s <em>tabla rasa</em> approach to grounded theory.</p>
+<blockquote class="blockquote">
+<p>As a practical matter, doing the situational map and then the relational analyses it organizes can be tiring and/or anxiety producing and/or elating. Work on it until you feel stale and then take a break. This is not the same order of work as entering bibliographic citations. The fresher you are, the more you can usually see. Glaser <span class="citation" data-cites="glaser1978">(<a href="#ref-glaser1978" role="doc-biblioref">1978</a>: 18-35)</span> cautions against prematurely discussing emergent ideas –— that we might not necessarily benefit from talking about everything right away but rather from reflection — and memoing. I strongly agree, especially about early even if quick and dirty memoing. But we all must find our own ways of working best. For most, the work of this map occurs over time and through multiple efforts and multiple memos.</p>
+</blockquote>
 <p><span class="citation" data-cites="clarke2003">Clarke (<a href="#ref-clarke2003" role="doc-biblioref">2003</a>)</span> refers to <span class="citation" data-cites="shim2000">Shim (<a href="#ref-shim2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>)</span> as an exemplary case of situational analysis in action.</p>
 </section>
-<section id="statistical-methods" class="level3">
-<h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="statistical-methods">Statistical methods</h3>
-<p>crosstab</p>
 </section>
-<section id="on-software" class="level3 page-columns page-full">
-<h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="on-software">On software</h3>
+<section id="qda-software-and-tooling" class="level3 page-columns page-full">
+<h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="qda-software-and-tooling">QDA software and tooling</h3>
 <p><span class="citation" data-cites="weitzman2000">Weitzman (<a href="#ref-weitzman2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>)</span> provides an overview of software and qualitative research, including a minihistory up to the year 2000 when the chapter was published.</p>
 <p>Describing the first programs specifically designed for analysis of qualitative data, Weitzman <span class="citation" data-cites="weitzman2000">(<a href="#ref-weitzman2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>: 804)</span> writes:</p>
 <div class="page-columns page-full"><blockquote class="blockquote">
@@ -986,7 +1011,13 @@ <h3 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="on-software">On software</h3>
 </section>
 <section id="writing" class="level2">
 <h2 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="writing">Writing</h2>
-<p>See <span class="citation" data-cites="richardson2000">Richardson (<a href="#ref-richardson2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>)</span>, who frames writing as a method of inquiry.</p>
+<p><span class="citation" data-cites="richardson2000">Richardson (<a href="#ref-richardson2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>)</span>, who frames writing as a method of inquiry. While much of it deals with the history of social science writing and the impact of postmodernism (which I’m honestly not really that interested in, at this point at least), there are some excellent creative writing tips scatttered throughout the latter section. One notable technique is her distinction between four kinds of notes:</p>
+<ul>
+<li>Observation notes: Concrete and detailed, accurate renditions of things I see, hear, feel and taste, and so on. Remain close to the scene as experienced through the senses.</li>
+<li>Methodological notes: Messages to self about how to collect data — who to talk to, what to wear, when to get in touch.</li>
+<li>Theoretical notes: Hunches, hypotheses, poststructuralist connections, critiques of what I’m doing/thinking/seeing, keeping me from getting hooked on one view of reality.</li>
+<li>Personal notes: Uncensored feeling statements about the research, the people I’m talking to, my doubts, anxieties, pleasures. These can also be great sources of hypotheses (for example, if I am feeling anxious, others I’m speaking with might feel the same way, which provides a string to tug on).</li>
+</ul>
 <p>See <span class="citation" data-cites="mitchell1996">Mitchell and Charmaz (<a href="#ref-mitchell1996" role="doc-biblioref">1996</a>)</span></p>
 <p>See Charmaz <span class="citation" data-cites="charmaz2000">(<a href="#ref-charmaz2000" role="doc-biblioref">2000</a>: 526-528)</span></p>
 
@@ -999,9 +1030,6 @@ <h2 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="writing">Writing</h2>
 <div id="ref-abbott2004" class="csl-entry" role="listitem">
 Abbott, Andrew Delano. 2004. <em>Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences</em>. 1. ed. Contemporary Societies. New York, NY: Norton.
 </div>
-<div id="ref-angrosino2000" class="csl-entry" role="listitem">
-Angrosino, Michael V., and Kimberly A. Mays de Pérez. 2000. <span>“Rethinking <span>Observation</span>: <span>From Method</span> to <span>Context</span>.”</span> In <em>Handbook of <span>Qualitative Research</span></em>, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 2nd ed., 673–702. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
-</div>
 <div id="ref-baszanger1997" class="csl-entry" role="listitem">
 Baszanger, Isabelle, and Nicolas Dodier. 1997. <span>“Ethnography: Relating the Part to the Whole.”</span> <em>Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice</em> 2:9–34.
 </div>
@@ -1071,6 +1099,9 @@ <h2 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="writing">Writing</h2>
 <div id="ref-glaser1967" class="csl-entry" role="listitem">
 Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. <em>The Discovery of Grounded Theory: <span>Strategies</span> for Qualitative Research</em>. <a href="https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206-1">https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206-1</a>.
 </div>
+<div id="ref-gubrium1998" class="csl-entry" role="listitem">
+Gubrium, Jaber F., and James A. Holstein. 1998. <span>“Narrative <span>Practice</span> and the <span>Coherence</span> of <span>Personal Stories</span>.”</span> <em>The Sociological Quarterly</em> 39 (1): 163–87. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1998.tb02354.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1998.tb02354.x</a>.
+</div>
 <div id="ref-huberman1994" class="csl-entry" role="listitem">
 Huberman, A. Michael, and Matthew B. Miles. 1994. <span>“Data <span>Management</span> and <span>Analysis Methods</span>.”</span> In <em>Handbook of <span>Qualitative Research</span></em>, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 1st ed., 428–44. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1994-98625-026">https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1994-98625-026</a>.
 </div>
@@ -1146,9 +1177,6 @@ <h2 class="anchored" data-anchor-id="writing">Writing</h2>
 <div id="ref-shim2000" class="csl-entry" role="listitem">
 Shim, Janet K. 2000. <span>“Bio-Power and Racial, Class, and Gender Formation in Biomedical Knowledge Production.”</span> In <em>Health <span>Care Providers</span>, <span>Institutions</span>, and <span>Patients</span>: <span>Changing Patterns</span> of <span>Care Provision</span> and <span>Care Delivery</span></em>, 17:173–95. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0275-4959(00)80045-9">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0275-4959(00)80045-9</a>.
 </div>
-<div id="ref-silverman2000" class="csl-entry" role="listitem">
-Silverman, David. 2000. <span>“Analyzing <span>Talk</span> and <span>Text</span>.”</span> In <em>Handbook of <span>Qualitative Research</span></em>, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 2nd ed., 821–34. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
-</div>
 <div id="ref-stake1988" class="csl-entry" role="listitem">
 Stake, Robert E. 1988. <span>“Case <span>Study Methods</span> in <span>Educational Research</span>: <span>Seeking Sweet Water</span>.”</span> In <em>Complementary Methods for Research in Education</em>, edited by Richard M. Jaeger, Tom Barone, and American Educational Research Association, 253–300. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
 </div>
diff --git a/research-protocol.pdf b/research-protocol.pdf
index 5127c80cb2882a0810a75b24fd5006db5092c8e1..29e0fc66cd1a2eeb74fe92dacb94904ab182c071 100644
GIT binary patch
delta 8507
zcmaiYRZyG(vn=iwEVx5};ETJvyJR8Q;_d|ag3IEIYp`I!-5r9vh2X)1OK{GAs_w%%
z_deXWuBoY-s;=pt>NzPvIxj)0T@C@7Q?@o+S)vkc5v1qSvKmVSiY!?N_4GY{w$z-F
zyC3#r^yFr?T>q|vu}$iNFrL6Z*6KxN<a%~w?Ufu#IfuWQ$8Tj9Q|Mt2X-=~y-u0Z1
z%Y}^QfD2GxGhLb<Xj<0iMVx)6%^n|_OCA$rZ$;%ShMpj#a=pf-on78epaoc=n**x-
z17$8d=3uW6{yEbdo^tJ4HkYod?jFfzPp{JK<ywOJ6y!qht5U&oGG-~om|jdD-M<q-
zZ3U`U==5HoPoKOi#y6#>kIo><J~_Q{*o+a<i3g#gcsw%HjdEbPU$iJ!;K4K+Ty7?G
z45=S1Qa|c>2wm4fw#dqo4#4lk5W{d5WG8HPN~<%;LpH0B9+n}^&x$++>5QF`nn|jM
zsyiBChmPpyIvq^IVWte7D*C}bqpTMk58l4%Gbs)-*{k^nZF8b5J?qb{*RmU^^_})&
zaZ#iupn&Tf-k3Aky3fle>pSY8cLQHAteveqJl(C$o&FoSSlDC0bi?ETSfe-MJ7bl|
zTIZtX+EaEl^$!aqh2l4B8t2N?WQtopK5w5m-nhnF+N!<~2R-P&pJ}LX9+p|gF+~)S
z(Odh939(<_MAKMjejm1K+J?IbhY55yY_`l_KfTWIkGXS8Nb-G3$<L1$p#mW?>QUF=
zWVE_<vsZ(0)ttxE7?pYfL&34*>VF3OCfRpb8ajXH$uF9!R{o|Ck+7f~aLjx?H6ko#
zF&#PbYv-F0D(U-ZB9$n+t87$HZb0^x57&=F$(!Rg|4K(_diaVt#!om2PZ3k9u^>k_
znN!g{x-lwoFfGdS@}rh&qm;3>x^`rSt(;FhLNW5YTi8NileBU5hv+hGdBLUAm-(+S
zkdNif*2}$`Ej1a}i=NZ=S*^o*asLbMDHUu6)*UVka0!WvWBeZueSd*dzz(}ycygQ9
zAD>sOS)v_PlxdN!(1TCU<{CMl_63!fW>$uks2<Okm)aU@Baq_d=YES&P5U;PoF5;j
z#R5KRZMZFebQecBK4pI~i1>pyr6<N?=l)|XoB1_8y^u1_U|Q~}p*76v*{0>Ui}xk~
zi1zTN7xKeK(p|fI-mmYjoh-HfAyNMu^kOTM9OHBHGIC4I(eb#z(6Gv^H2hL`?0+Jj
z963}c6y`GUtLBWPy+Zs0u1jU$r`651JF!pFfhtTz52B_vi3a>5u1-)MPq{#xqSazx
zf7EeJ;##XL;ccii%`#Hwq2(~*6te09<g2=a5*lOveB)(IlP2Y!4KYM<gA%x@G=E)6
zdK^+DpW2&A^U#Du8Abh7m%Veu5b_rO*`UK~T{<NuHAb^Ym297s!V;Py^?-!ypeUSA
zb3|AG8u{V^8kS94!S4?x*rqL27NW{gtVjh{$SnwON-q40c1<am*rDB&_I0HLM6Eh~
zppmbV45Gg8sI-qQE)!W1D|G5jbWPTy?K!n0nMInKJ=0`L-xti!8R6ub7Uz8n!O10c
znJ)kpeaP`lp8ijrARgzEPS<Aa>#?e_rqdCdLRFU{)z5=HDF$5T>nj><ukuobrjk6W
zMN`>GL;um;KIp<;Cw<S%zl#Sz?Y?isTSyi4w%iOjogLeE2=6w*CY?9Oy0KFAG>?r;
z<A%7~A`ew$+ATmb$RWX-P65}D>^cwRy&1Cl8A5kW-SjM9C@GVU#1d~$1iXOi{&e4`
zjgD$+m|MUIyy(PO1x`Lex6`j}-RBp?n3_*m|68*#&nR|)_kXQmBDcc;7hbr}OANV=
za&1-Pkp)(CDAaB~Owg!)bZ(VsFgbCr@2xw{k>^G-<ossi$XCmhN|}*T)~3=g9EYqt
zY{(QhjecQ8Sq>jV+Py`y)o%nV`idST@k1u6`>gcZ=JGMH^Dw^r^fBc0;<I;P2S7YZ
zjKtq?FHDBi?&?=IykTxoAup4K|JAmBbYu0MzDR*Xz-1SV$hO4Z+-tmYrX0nRYNfy(
z55|VMo9ri2jeHm3)~MQ~IOkh|HD^%~`wjnXV-sSqeqjdbddyWn7TjRSEIoDpKB@YY
zY5T3~gEB0E%O`USxEK`;-41P<C(5JkPW)=7&l<qw*mzm(`U*$l{sj+KA1(5KF#}VB
zu5sZ-oWBwYJF}=fGuk2cB_?1awL2Nv6c~)?YYz<b$9Vkgsj0GAk-_E{y^7uN<I5Vl
zs}=D)EhFv;G)s5ZJ!p35?6~zY6Y+9SZ-yr8@;QlNgu4V*McCE_Rz~D6E|w2n)~=@j
z-EY2M&T9a@mVh9i^e3CWe2Ms{!Ls38ba8Q%Qtj=5>VV(!K4P8+rd9e$+EA9NuDI8N
zyd^cjeRIFbtlO>ol;ilw(j+4FN*pWy?6_TPNJ}g16u+YKX?Q)N!n^yJgTr`eUZ-p^
z$Uo+%*Cg<E&1hHZ@zQeT;ai{CzbmK_Be^Dtq6~nT!<S?scz*IxosQV22x`z^)6ww)
zF+a^TX)<ZfFTq%TDD|=!(e2@~QdhF@W0v--Qs_x4iVNZHXt+Yh5X3G?!7(}T-Qbs3
zjO}$aEu)AK`SriF3!o|EUGNBAlOb&!Duo@ZinRu-%Iv%@#9BjLdR}5c$&l85_GVfW
zs!N2Ae9X&iE6h)+A4S+-RRZV}9ww!V9VHPd_|`HTiW(BKeQ?qGdEvY~=i@H{wrlIS
z-ph-;a$q{?_%|OFHi|tUFs-!KR<lj@Xg-B;E<tN|HxBE9ioo;19-uUUTA2zgO;G5D
zS;avCPenQn_w~s*d9(l%f5IL@qNcl~#~vPjIKsU2EnHpE*;N;2j>di`oy>sDkpWKX
zS(W6A9wS(^5vGytSv+Wa^?eWqFG%jKorS#Ie1rIOP{G7p{~|mHJA`=-c`Z&94Hcy2
zhKPQEo24Tt;sZJ2d};z(y*gY5X3<s$_VxLL=2eX)TqW&jndG)llM~}v;)}jxVW)~E
zi<*A_`rN82rFjLM8)-ICcIfP`)ExE4@3OH_{Gvt}L-5CCzE!Ur_G{<J)2kiLV9ey4
zcv~GJz|YUMFUcLtmq1|i75v|-|L;r9Ehq>hiDQBnfJwxW04B<p_(t}$B=sS7^J&Fv
zi%B2KY186%D6Z~OZ*j#I5_?ONAg`-Ca&2r*ps4#vFNi{@AaAp`=NZRT;>vtoomN(K
zJ2#@vy@1oA!li}IEvKFeT^<k!Oy!;B39MCDIcEJ%m+`Wnco}&T)+_vu$kAi=1)tQT
z?KgNDv8hB1@U#$)3yW&m_~++p;0CJf5L=J8si|gKUMXsQF#Ov;dN%j(gZ(HDU33gx
zt4hI?CtvQ<SYqYhq(Zx$9%<F(*N=4dw-Oz?zReOD`D1a*^KCtO3_R=z><BEHX?<zI
zOtsvTpR>Pi$#M6MTcH@ETtx=!`+kse=tNZ0UUA1O1U@n$XCv6HWEetG>WG=*|H19}
z(qu}m;t$SJOHt&ax2ae$6v$0V&Cn&~;}SZm{)nZo<zdoQs+KHEM%dG2TBc#vQJvYT
zK}rthCD_?JG>doi@Ko(9g@jB~Q0n~D2hm1SfG-)*_?ZqD4r3tshoKP8vQGI_Ue>a0
zouZH|mIl4DT58?ApKewodQWS-9&S^(K`SG*+PgObX|MXt=Z}|q_b&(-)n_oNFv14B
zggFO*`+vIj;wL+wHTkrcjUI%}Us*y3_GXV(q9ZCIvsTxGQ*-9mh-&>jYlH=fDU|<e
z^1oC{;uoVC$CNO@2#{$ij=K!b*IUe^8^f84`+BMq3pBNel!=6orH}e8Bv<?W5`z0t
zwQRLygWdEL&7BIIXiEmH%@l!fWMM+>j;LE25^HnGH5Ll)P0Q}2@K{4fNdslAujSg>
z?@_QC`?!h6e7PbBmsa{M@(2ogwfCAnvh5=$oZuu&@{nV&KajIEc_Pbk<IPLSqFSg+
zH%4t{ne@M-LsNC9D*T#{iN|hX8m5RhC&NGv-lnaO#G@*VIK+%$kW2u6q~IYFTIkJa
zqRS$IYa7)+gTtcmn3$u&0+G>^a#%uw73YWzcX$CAT}(fgtRaAInDT}QQC3^GIz%;5
z9fK=4#tngmVYnm(Z$$gD`2wY1896v-QLs-_Q?yT$u$Fa_81Y8|ZEUYMgDN3Ix<d>)
ze0gLdT0cggq{!SDogr{2DLvf>kB=XNE9HhZjyRYKrxMjDvJ%En5l&?hi>?fZuKul0
z(MyHE6<<m7y_S2ZCgcwWI)TDb8>g8pV=cyAe9TYy_QDV)23{&X)fHAaYG+iKS79tI
z_82@A3(c}-mVrZ1`c!)>Ops|=Q5Bi3DUWPO7xl#gn3a;iM*(7SmXgSL+7#nH*BOZR
zQQ$f$(g^q`CgN9yGMq`#N_ycpT5hQm?#rIZ27msePUtJosykaOJ%eLsW>v{Jjc;ab
z`jxwiwN=zeS@VSyDS1xkNLkyuxZs;I3rqJ^&ajw6pV}4Demq5y!5n`-8plost))`h
z@a&*n3XBrDo&wnR+OE|*QXHJGVJSn4xK?Cz&-EZ=nptBBQPpMs_Fb@%fH&%01>D6&
z`2M>M8g!*zthYT5wnYVKD1Rw|4V7RiQ*mVHLORy(mQqxti5Uv0Zsft|V*fHUMjDV~
z2thkzmE?_bmMM$H%)G2;@E?(^w>{#NV9HkdREA<GvoerDEG#U=Q(q)Zsnq*`A-9%{
zewx`&F-_<uC1X3lT|GlQ^$qEis!j(@0dIgAEozXol}mdI>+8X6Ka>Hy;tK~&61FJH
zGgZbdt#}8;Q$!<1h;z;+91{wDRVP3?h7#*pje&CUq<6JUjVEA2b?_G+%e*9IG(RL;
zG?m>oTmV}4xsb?VG+XMeK&)L&YEN|;)Hu2PK>e;~S0jUj{cDI`SF3;1PEF1C>z2h`
z2zU8=#Na>l5sU8^jc%<HQv`lcnXf{RpU$W5|7}g$d$m2A=)HX54SKR~%;GTE^L%YD
z&&%lw@P6zxs%DzJ|Fb=C+~MCzCTsA$tTeDZlNGRHW~n18L36vm*ftCDiT+%f48dlc
zhw0VD4%Wj;xC&AajX-9XUvm)mH}$3y8LrSn^u!BB4nR9`HlHs7W@F73Dy43pj~b4x
zUrs87J4kYuHLkYZ#B*LEoW`H&U7oJ@t#!l#FNRLO8<~57$0qk1qe|r15HD2Xn2Sp|
z*nwLd5k+A0@jKVJJ=UJufq}vM(#ezg@gdvJtoW1vm^ovKB~2kbFBB6U@!k=x<_@b?
z>)$Z`1qtJ80F$Ok0BJgZ1e_L68_h&Y){zi`9eLP#12$wHdStJJ7`tCtbtd!m%<@it
z1up#4C|UFw^B2DS{*m>QpoH1Ltg|wNO`r!bGmSl7b#JoeP=9}0PsKj$G6r!oby`;*
zpQCdu;%A}9T+k%b-{wh^9}z)?ZSd$fH!^c2zA2|<lwDaKVO4rPHg$Xi$103JdKyjl
zy8oIOH{)P3K^GOIKcd4<gEvBtuCkhxN7pRfOhuZ1s4(r!UOIorouvnIhKOjB03|9T
zIB0H@h5fbovk2-X$nnN6dC|qUwH#LRu%qVyqi!Sc1P+rp<TFK;1IVlqkPgO1sKa)G
z=>F)<D3ZaMSh}$ucFMUgLb#S1TBsD5zpO`9bv0p-C;Wyn6^3Jw=IH2Hp?1b5sUcrE
zdo*Ml4+bw>FUBMBl=0LK$i++A3WX8(=$0AI&h)qRE4XjHwMagVTY0YFl)cu038(tg
zf?we02!4q--s6+rOof<W0yKr0ybb%$19t88^f3rOSCI-DQ0`?4*k#c=pSIq;{04WN
zU{#Lo?ID;Na*nxqXuVXn8BZuQq)WlWlK_Da0XpRw7&EIfSl}yfmF#zh${#7u=_RHW
zDl6r3WsT=*D%6FdlTl7rjOA>*jt2jg&|!eer{5b;>wjVOHv!6yp)s_#JvK!T55VHJ
z6ONo!($R2gsHPxYV|^q9E_uJ&IxM>>I>5+uD$APHy7_&jo|pt!os+}n_Grf*1z28T
zC5ZniA~0MCMMD{r6`kvRZ#zq|?w1DcDxdw>S^0iki&dm->e80_nJg33G%);qN6!Qs
zb7a$q1UigSCAb?BOa9XVHFN{42C&&FeU>BLFqAyAh)kfD36c4Fb++p?-yZWeaQs&Z
zq^6j1$k&+eFv7x_?FYtSMEZ5%1c=6yxskLPnGjQ#Z$SILL&lW766#sl14=aS6>VC^
zd|a^(r)el<H;&{ZFc5mQ(y}`KZB<tk|4a2O^9tXMGYOU~4PRv)0~Oy(qiUf*mylw1
zDJ9|_byR%vlcQ-^?Q*=SxDC-6LO<tVuc;f7P3&AFhKXSfm}t7lWyg5$0()I!#9n+a
z24FSu&i6qM3XNOA3A!^=eccymtZ_;M>0@hOh!h`>!|_oRED2{gVhKz>(k-#{QVerY
zUdixUM;-O4vIMj$w9Ob~u|C4R&5PSJ{yw^cBuhg_L^}T(u~CzfhSQ%@t?@kGU&e1~
z5P5WZ*7@J{aH@mL4Np!(fqwX*4T36L--j&>dC6sOPNKn^fOfLUjZXz)8P(st)MsG=
zJ-X*)geKqTh~N>Xrz6+p)mXKz`m(*OduI)QI^CyWqSL)@)G5ZCPR5`~eRll_9_`p=
z?XAR1X6u|JeM7}aJ7(h#DAVl1X=@74rwymi?s!VW66Zvqc9(au09vWy4NZ*(xWZmX
zdJDBuF3&#ZkVCCS6KnX_S(^5)c9+!u69BZdzj2U&W8H<d;E|8`eC_teZvK+Wg|hOx
zP_Id-m+>|7x>Hgs)D)DkJF-42xKwQL^9H3l|HYvabs8?^)Gr!3wmM+CseOcaYMsYM
z4%!^pNuhm7UqF8*0@Cj?JkJ%yNi^I(E!1e3O;&RphsQ2Cu6o(XXO_7fEMwllCMk|F
zKWLp|J4YAPb#e52TU>Xepf?t*IqV7)4GkS`()@n6*BfK&lj*!fD=)hYLdlw?hS_SH
zslFeSRVZAZM7X3dNEN4<^_Gk6_#|*rEV12iI}l1U7J0C24IF<fP)Ok{h3(NW^#?T3
zQsQIGL9rFQ{lv-H?PwS#PKR2qA$26nl}7<cjAMu<r);~R+1!`Ts#&N-uGqHD`Fep^
ze*pYelxxFmhw(78NFi9&rop=Y(W`)e{y};GXA?TRGk{fr{~-X?+{ac%bH5`iuz#ZT
zaP|8&i%DiYAUQtk$g|`9hgR&AE!llqgrjt~h3|Ys(%!3IumSX&ak2#~9<AjQyS%|T
z<6#sGH64w4kJhfe;of_IqowkaoRBS%kUurZ=OVBnLyhBj)KfHMFMZNC>(?QYcXvkr
zD7#5_shdo%6O!7+9;N_#op!TAcEWKY`0CfKv&dO%`ZO}UBs^j|9tyk+!eV8*9tu1y
zuxtqD!DQMIJE|WL#;w^&)|GXN6teEt&DN|z>fikMOK)oqlKMmGioHC6#B*FsW}s1%
zt15kMY23*m+=<4vw8A^adDcq6m*W1pe^}$~zODAJ0!AE!dJ5E&H5mbrw!WB?BDp|X
z2K+%;XVQfpwQS*QS{)L9DU>ZcsHQG~st(~+{BVs;`ypd37sHM&^Mng;@Uep>>DOHD
zw96owyLRzH&bYsn-poI4-z7cqmEZ5k2-4L{`^<|tBD<8|;gE~NrJ?dt&Ms8m)Vf#N
z?cGI+<#$ldc-nZqbvJGgyq#cRvYuiFwz>zx9g`flS1>+SnKlnc;`0TZ@4#gOYMjp2
zTi7K*pDVN@>3^PN9mDkw>N^MOQi7*YBWgra<Qyn)S1!L*CtNR$82Ge!De}5mj^bj8
z_{?uFv4l#QtU-fNmt(p#xyDiyp0&xr$3Zkk%L$qmwLnQ-z2{3nT#BOE%K#bK5%oSf
zr_}8gldMyZG8^@64I*f6WZoZWGyZPyUFSUaj8xU2;jv-)_GDR_<k>IMcyp)h*Y(Ql
z9j?#j@~T>^;~xd6f44H{vUZHi%vk9^FWd&{>;t){kvoKC3NzuQdrSqxOvE2~oX0*#
zjN3S7>jTSH;^LGE7j7>By6Fi=+aS9|dGUgE>ZvaAe$dVJ0yyt3>R|~G^&0nJAK~uS
zz5(%rhpQvqe2Tb15>uMDphj@SE0>IevHa=T@7AX$l3n@>H}J3+Rlf^6{y=<s@upYh
zRcOT-FGAOE5s^TCFq;9nD8Ogzj8u`wYhXxbxV;zA@>A{e)!F&6wMP@l@;IGO&O^|a
z#|=Gso@t}i{>Nu|mdx}^G<YHeXUTLlba)UvOS&jJJUKjkx*<9|E1I+7l=u1lI$rvJ
zVuKvQrf&KyIy{xOGqYmtmyn+(MFPt?a`DUIJ|kPSa%(&-!cJXwarI3B1IH)+Jd|S2
zL29^46vuqj%QZ%#MhiuH4TcBpZX7h)7}AX`Km7voy2?|no=h5%)pFCNFyP67SXGZE
z|Au!{@xpowm8!jE>O%w|kjtD$`siY-sp!4em9xK)U*M&~<us}?GkxsEo2by}ll+Fi
zu<;^p-Yd3@KJ#e8-Vd$P{#U)Io;)j}z%NGA)Flkd{L<6kE6sTZmnVy>yUmt1O{*aD
zLVuH;n~GgJ1YH9Cva#(t<GNsgSbnU2k&#E9MGv*_Bx<I2*=et^5HHy!6HXktZ)5P0
zGDYi+cOHeY$QCq(ALj>=OzAwv0m@i=fx*LPly@X(Q@C9kyHZx#hVO2AF>}l0v(=jn
z21rok%L@pZ&=CW-MZY&`vwEr`D8!O}O6PdfxA@#iKDGs8c0873j49v;5Z`<KifEQO
znUk|YF>YgEx%UeuIgFGl;dWhyPeHmP?$x^YG*VW?Llhjn`I3<uj;8p!wKK0!>1?|I
zr-mrO!A{6OC2_7w6|x_qD)Y&TmMlOGb0q(0I`W2pf2LeD>m0$ZdzFrWHfZtZk$4Yr
z^w#KyR9Y6&RQcY8TOREK;JZ)*qxwcPov_(6whW1@o1@L83BEmbgyis?*4`-hxuqI|
zU3S{`z${)%vQ764Y@)FAoJ#NbTYaYQ2999cEJ8A(g#4l=8=MW837_7Yj1{+`ZvsPd
zTOq}0S&MOjloZ9N@?En5VNlg&!J-A+s2yVl(O;T|-8#hsN%Vv&06Piw+X|8|C+y`O
zS@!W_rKHD-2+Qc}#3OHJ^MLTA4jdwCR&0vzBHqtrhe#aPer9fnt~<u38)COC$i#J<
zsG_zK@xDz&=fpWb_9V$%Au|E`FH{HYU-zP;7A~yOiGQV6VR06})UQa2j1%nClHzHp
z7a=-7Ckhuc7L6<gfvcC8rth)p&iOOW7`w7_X`Z6&_sFbo_lp8H?@qZ;ZJZL%BKalN
z{Mh-@SPJp}bfKp&f$k;23`c~qiJ@pcqx<7ncHuhcYf~TO;UZP0XbIBZ*_F|Ee};>_
z0;$tmEX5Uzl>Z<<g*h{$dF|#X33J~B9)~%gDP52`Yg1D<0xnc95<*|bHYxBHcW3L>
zizHrN4jQO|`{|nQAnq*A62ZXV6HGaeI|J@|W;v5)0xWg;8tIiok*Enwla-Ifk7?()
zss{(SQ%s5@^NW!Lu5Fz;B?eEJ!QUeq^OwdiE&QWDWs2ik!vT-<noJec^UI|j(Lp|P
zx3)q|RWuamfOhe<4yoELg7!=A`Hv)2j-Im81DC5}h4U#OM_u3LD-X<8400!4Vx+G3
zxRXYWt>P51NP0Em`D_~`UWutCmK`@W+kbK51Ak1N7$+g~D^p<n5mfj3Au1Q3Y8J7&
z68<3-FP=SRAD7##hUaNqgb;n)J1ijI9_*#QtSs>Y6h1x${Jz*tt?*#4bl?erQ)A8W
zkh`vb$kQ<Rz!&SL8#W;LFruLm^!ofo@e1t0ou%T1q55f39{QzMIq13oO7z5H=+^w6
z^_Ncp!atEcpD~`meCAXMETUy7{ud<1uE!I)p}%xP>j*4?H!e_OfRg?3&i3Kq?<KS+
z->LW=@GqLUCn4=#$u_#nmb(s0oQr_@hKl<Pu>IyX_P<@0Q#mY@LwCb$yqWD`H{S7T
z%vdYh8_(|ve0^wW;yruqExbCBHmPMUkU(aW`WKA+(1u9-k-e|K22~9K+NDx^Q|<yK
zN;R|pWij*{;iK3e7fd3S8q1*#s*jx0d7?p=z`SvmZ@yvOli_84NGh{G;y8{z7VEIi
zt66+;9Se4N$DnflW4obShaq}PuQKj~iKU#`NX!#9-}wC7!~S1r6YsWoUA@5u>x0r>
z)p?C`=&=QIt{ybi_n%vdMj+*npSi#EN7ojb|1%j%<V90`zh=32nIQ3UaX79nKjGgg
zh5AFWD<M^b)x}9dUv;HV*%p)7yL!3KomGvcQRbG?5tE!Vh`{+#cXcRkb!gIwb)D*}
zWmv5>KHID8NdmLOS}FY<9z44=pS2K=rKLH<nw#5FK=40Mh}RNiZDGM90OIDe2JwoE
z{{K4Czv98m0eoCs|MNG<w=im;?ncskc`%BXw1H)fMqBdJkVhvhma`BmdIE#ilrX8V
zGr7F*iY}Z7^7~ig7R5nrU6bvi#AkEZm!5;Vhn#c2v-5u<K5l@4Y;oxa#X<VGm9Kj%
zF&Y;_;zRFOB5E!fy|>792~&IE4bTb90sJt73&idL(-jj&hIReBKGx@0>N-x8N?E40
zu^?YH#^#?)FPFj*TW}On1tbxny2%)h>8K7|6sVQO$bXOUI?H$BnnyJ|LkGAJA}tx>
zdy@n){u65AwMHK-OXG%&V~5=YsXlzhQXe!-eg3>g9(gN>zU#)r^qEe*&rVQp2uQd2
zpgMBeirnCe0<px&>(4X{Q>ewW*|z%~Wx|aPb3=Y~{V*lZdDgp|5n^+Jls72ki?zJ#
z{yWsejmmkTtCjj-7hW_f(iNU+IDoA;JOfJZN&wlR`xKk)_Wo>`F(dMc3sJ|7uX-po
zBcjq3yLzCgl`!30IB$qYG;+u=1UR@vNZXO?4EuM<YC4SZV_5lSm%TIi-v$51kZ@|f
z@xS<Vn|A$Y*Q%Q~eXsUMpj}^KC4H$-o4|R!c<xVA(7tEnEn;e#^oe(Aj|r--u+9%N
zp>@cM=H3bCNek;Heie23^PNeLPy5<qo$~UV$=m1==hEcV8|$K<$?ag&GdrRm$gTJP
d{rG!$n!9`Yx?4jq_=WiS1u+;I<uv3m{tISuPip`G

delta 8473
zcmajEMO2&(&@9a0?iL6(xH|-Qw?J@r3mz;m!-GR`AKZewyF0-(NP-3r5ZvLu|9Aey
z{Z@C^i>_YOsp>v;`n(wNq!_X8XE0EbvbEX99GPH0kDS!9Saj{^sT$Vy!x8)8b_ptj
zZKA*3%6sLVE8^Xt;!{Bx`cl3Q{w}56%))<jszyRL?OC3>=T}%29W)M!W;kaP5&HAn
ze<PvJ498XC>HOe@W<uv&_{z(l{h)Mr8B0!yh$sFoE_Ad@rO{vFW8)_s)<R$mf8doY
z>`7{K*h#0w&M$LX+*7GTmxNn{K0|2S#l)vLe3AM+Yg}x0^m0^7QO^X%e0xU%k<f0G
zToZ+!QzFaTFqA_?Z`ie_)YC_-L_~dSBphFcX6#Ce5;da$XDy!t&KVEkfx{9bA%Zj+
zF^qaSg<98u4883PsR@xjp9pYKl&Ts?2^I(^#^!0I_9W)%-%Ph;;-br#oq*qvDN|(d
zWVm3I_G}5ft2ZIAlIFzUps(!fv?lU}K}5P#?0=*d-29ojGIq#K*>v&y<p8EaF!<F(
zsW22%{jSGB-BB)n{A|sog69cGf_u;!-NwcGi>HT;h4cScxmr4+Cu@hw0kPG;B}13B
z+^W_Mjgb9Sk{6I1@e9ST*EP<SsfZP~e0<)FIo|4+T8rnzFnYUEiLR@b<-Z>O-J-9<
z;9EoFwo{&XRrmd&+eXcHI{=L&*1x~<{&3!#w|S?qj!tm(fS0+=^85^08)p9W@zc%G
ze&B@&Z2froW;U&)g>3?U1Q^gP>D<^{ajO1{lv}b=s<+kbu=3Yfo3tGHpk_As$bj&V
zkSWQ+RguoD5KTYEf@Ff+?hk_&ay`mG&9_T;=>`>cAT004t|eQ1A>TCP&U=UcZvrVQ
z2}vYH*58^U6YkR@J&#y5m7AmtwKxi}ndhR;-XkeufRAAx@0QRV+8G%Nf6xuopPlC+
zXJ>yUrA0X(b(Maa4LquC3W^w<?obMQ!nwvvUQF%@69%}s#KqD7e-3@uOj72e)+7nT
z&!JK6zqE*R=y-R7Q8P(dJlAc0JNuI-&mk|<$#(xc&6@OaD*%PLPETgPNeBrocxE|g
zJr<U5LXFOz<tUCzj$hilZ;SQ(fvT);aoRdCl7fF`xlt}WYI)IT3htMVnXivmB2TwB
zPr%h@e-<(^f5^?~iNc&jPw(DZ#Sf~L7w?m<sL<BcGw+`Jg%+VE$NF?8eu}uI0~O#C
zPG!aKC(hlqnVw7N@ApfC{v8;sou7X~?~`3Q90d$G2EE9>+88~2(M##!%>16mW;@uZ
z9S!kKBiPh_8$JlPdXjl)Jsdst6LZR&!UwuBQ;-`z65>VYr>D<G>0`P_6YZq=BH09m
z4@;6y(|?>6Vp<-;l=Wtnz4gU5@HQN)|71U{E_8>egsgc=t;tUJgD!+AB<UR`kD{lz
zRN*Jo9JCFTEE)#u$Z8r<eHu|ZZRY+EBK)N!6KxF56Ke#`&#a-}No|mEl(4t^(YFDb
z{cdtmOceO-eza|xLJnk{L~BVeS?>@>TA#u-G^GedZ%5}twrF+6P<0tQ15aU^BQzHK
zxp!9r?7~)l15xUi2A*Vo1M@WMs7v+#A=wN+{@1Qjos-~8okxHpy#umQ7e!U_Dle63
zF381RQjf&uzD^npAxPplplDBp062H91F_<lHy<d9G)!*W6?6siSg%clZDU5bxe}K9
z!<MlPBhuCL3DI>HuJYA*1+US2zxrMY$FF8cqoqh8XUY(xAA>1e=60>gMlvUB-TPvb
zAH>rqK5yb!@x+{S1&$gR2)>GMceapggl$T!3mKFBFViM_L~;N;|4V`ibB-Zg|0BUK
zt2|MeE@$$gj(FB5%MMR)+(I3aYSJ+zJuj*$rhg^jH^<-d-oMtBO{WqP4^(PaNnzw9
z{MssG7{oRF8-{5KZ_L%1*t;s}g-c9Q(R&z(`)WMV_3Hc3wdk17Beb}pf#ZmMXY>wW
z?5j5#ZZ)7yh^_p>8&4de?2SIp2Zu_MMOvL<;j>dQ+<gKikCPvx^u8;+$g!P&3_?)G
z&`huiFz#|0B^=fK6dwMAGK9~NC8Wui1>@r-a9&$kdAh>Mul^!W>_teiJE`emc+{rV
zgMX1C0;UVN`_hVbh60=9B^7wr`1gol_X@4eCTz%Vz|i5~@&E@N;*XTv_)P@h{a?H!
zPdM&M;>z7UMw!~8_WOB{nj;2S4q7v;jH8Tct<y$QHtmJIiEHJ7qw&Vv)^xm1yvuD*
z2KQ%|Lo&NNYeZM2OpaSTZkK<XI4rH2o(M!*>MZS1{{bdS4ntNSs}J7@V|5yLy?fWr
z^MGE8&Jz0rfK$Q08z4H{yRss2&{@Ukr;6XG(7&$}5_1W0#y&0n6fKuO!ee#1zD0TL
zVBlr<^jY}ngyrP;wjx*jCnMm|arXjqb`mM$8vA0#QP|l~`L~)=`6TMrF+}czc)Q`>
z5k?#*qnA5CnDG?C{6^%09<OWVOIo6N=5VSc;|@Oz%qEQ?f;BJ_VQdAlr5CdcX<dYC
zi752kDN={@wFwLwGU19ent};Tin&aZ4vL)QOkfY}Zyg`ew`t@|YV-9_70Sz0)VfNI
zP|pn`r|}7S7H_bn#kOmByX<IWIpvuK5#o4+ql+1Gh7WB#ZHpKL6S*a()JSRk#?$jk
zNNDLkp<kD4j-{{o8i;G5wuV2v(=?ZtcjTd^jr(W*k;|8hiPU8yKVj=Po6Xr|z;n^w
zdXD&+12f>=&?O>R6S-;J3t7lrtbQ>#>p3Z9dka8lo4u_~?u`}!2_!#7Qv))QG!81+
zxQA+K%W>3cp=?yocg=LkG9+~AOOsrgWmUKTiMo*LyM8ROAx(R~RBSj6-wK*i5@DOU
zx74ex*b*Jfj5aVwN%JVSp)vY+>e*A4`y+k|sq;c<YTsLo&S+}|`O<41^(eR!DuzY;
zq}+mjnGGk~sEWC)TDRuD1Z=IH_FyT{TBB4N89b?pIlc^07Kf!1hPA3l3zvMr&g9|K
z_Ex;~&4s@l6h)F6f9tlBT59?$6>HU7$}1ArSmb8kiNS<%$eX_?!cKN@)ZwesFK@MP
z-NW@}N1~w!@v2DmW&vK|XncIN{+H$d=T38fNG6SC{ErFASW@7V@;`h7M;g+G-TBxe
zD4arWQMkT9)R(b!y=95(k23Ii@|h2I(RzCwO;gl68b31-uyz(#*5;Z!g=BUV4@Tr2
z7>-9URkt^rbf|_aTPuKCL;Q=AGpoA>00Le2akg2oHpE^k=3Y3jb*_+AV>Ev4xTE9Q
z_kgyUp*X7e9|J=WN;JIl?(>taGs}juPFk@TJE|InpDT^&kXr2RKW-;a7|qrwiL!Ed
zzluNFb!65+ZN_wNRp&%6%xLzF-iYv4AM;FDL`8BZHTFhMj^@oY@H2>mbb|<)Cd?-!
zc~{bj>!u|C6{c_5w7^v(JPb;bcO~buZv@#gI|-rA5dq1;YC(KXs#S6!`WOVG{_yUi
z399){SUZO^)N#|Hzvy|AW((7(?GwjlP|yV!bVu;?-w{;M2~uk-1$i(f8{wufGuU6~
z!H-L3qFs1gb1Jk5372er;_bJKi(|H~%t(-ltGUNVBq#86^ptDVxRz=p(Kh|AOh&Z$
zuUu1VYL%Hqdj*F@<IjhN-HI3I%yyvz6p6o9`sMDA<SGE`y3fl!%X0u|<;$6F<6GR`
z=l{K~myAEd)<+Uwa?OHV=l<q`9$&^T9OEeyi)G_%##_29?m^%JJX&la2BD->vpoM!
zDf~aUi!uCGc2H5|$g`S?nvR=+!Fl4s1mw34>2PT|9VVT_GK^x3XpjxYffzD6m280=
z9@2;oO;~eSOIQjv3<}T?5g&e3JOwX@n5Tq+oJ-w?An_0K#5|VuAQNUeP>HgV2`Ses
z@~A%3Za=A(z7<CFSM^YMmDHa#b?GFcH6n`e<4#OXe_ZPp=ZOf1B~?-IC?bW>=D-1;
zUC<OFskz3#M#2YhNH#@&#RE$z;v_nGhDD4~O8Z8V6>>5q!2x0oTGE6cBXy)?=yCBp
z`{#v&yzs!%>G{<7w?uTZ9wn&AU?n5-Zwt>@n(Tjy?TO#Mk^0Q)Vd5%jwxjb%2{ZR0
zvW%b=C6L0jq~EIyuMd!;vJxSB=<XuQNL?VxX!cd`8DZ9ihjYQNCvs^f7}qc}AQn+d
zgHc%#5l$6ZqXF{*1T--e6h%cQal~O7HXK|%cs82(GjoEZGGf0-ZU!b0-G?A#+9h_i
zJ|#LS6WMVr>5N2HI@R~Z2R#tH)IOFK5f(7YVH7$;;;gSWw?!o!q>Vy#`5R9-9}@~2
z4|Pnpd~(|sYO_iZ!A`m{EjLl!qMsw-CyMLn7dey{MSzq`SYN?$><^efc-Zs;@r!5^
zP0+7HDQV>@?4&l7Ft{b9*|;DP&2)lx0;J$X5zVc4<sape(WOL+po!IKqAC!Fub`2p
zimgj)W~m!HTt#J#VpgTp#PDF2;-dQ>U&!vNkOapG(nUOCOqJGAY1<;L!ei(S$P@@l
zHPyWd#{iGepJ9W##k6=Dy(Rfz(rMb%F|TRObV=7zR36QOz|5Ul^;v59GWfnhl1v5P
z5IQ;#?=!5kPMeAydo5c%`|DPAW&-7<mKl%RW-cWzm&_M7EsETb#Nz^RO5kK2n)+c{
z6Z{;jgI{r^lm@{ZQqsBoE6nI4viDY;c2WXIA;4r|czB37J{EWENe4P$C3IF{XtG29
zBKm0v39A5Wv`yORLkND8|ByP(dnwHC)YSNPTLX$gyl}Y+7@SF-7P}xe`Qyk~KR;%%
z><W1{X=)mMRK5;pEv5s+M-esLGEPJ7MCKV!Y1CMSuMXTA`$NcmGbRh>`N4JYzonVS
z#enXxF(nL2GTMA-;2n3240Kiqi-M0BdZTmmQW{<2$CWjuw^TVH$olFhp3z-PIZd)_
z%Z;ljZmBO;ovRa%tn_v87?jps5#aj}1Ke#?>yk`J=q&Xf&pip=I5rrkCa<o4y*XUH
z(@-~?gjHTZJU!k5ZW`WIBhRHWA3K;i0ww70l$D+2n5Exu^u9%G8iQ9ViVS4NudQ|1
zXzTx4GppLu`|;#e`$|rOu3$?9bl)Js=BXNo7Y{MMyYEQ5^d}W+GnexHF7B0XpjQ(W
ze%_{e{PCCD7UH5$MC)k}3LCdSug(vacKtOrrw>@GT$I~avx)1QB5mLT%JIUQfW_kC
z4GWZ`bHhzSTZ7pAuJON@m(QNBx7U`M@w&;HjfuGRMV^?le1W#^G!}4qSX)cEAc5lz
zeR#_6LqIOtBC**>aV(8wiYf;xZ?Uakoa7p^g^yFn(H}^I;XK@pQ}YrObrw3gfl8jA
zz-mA{M`2UD|LMLB`um)_LuG*i(AgS|r<%Cx$l%b6et0-4G!VG4yspXSoUW)gaxgFq
zbzWq!u?`|r9%L~dnLqSBF`qXY`H@D9gnViC4WB?KfGx+OS-sc0wK!U{+esZZMaaf@
zW$<wI;L93>Vn=6E)XziBN>iU&waNrKzFto<=P}}s#!23%1&=`ZsisN+5iQbUl~HU|
z_o>2xI{Z0!^<tzr!<V#gMK^UE*2fpt-YsmK)zhUY1XR3Sam&paoNI5AL0IthSkAWE
zRekB-Ww0lguWd%0v+uj%ucU_gDt(gY8c<Z-jOgSE^U<e6vGvlNoSZ7uT-YV!PjsMu
zrZaVwSGFx{iIT`V$lh(A$MBdUW_MudM66_n_qzA0*w1go_5kJ2h||Dhs&%<-Hm7$h
zRMcVxr!vu;iBhiYZO#8s!27!oo&mQ<d?u@Sa-cs>!LtSk&jqu@V8jjRzsP{Imfv1c
zI(wIvAWkRZJ^KLDmoEYB=}QYRNf3w>2zY>)l&7Q5uF7DVTzacy;pr>0Qk;V&W{#Kk
z3YEa@M|wJ?*|JI@-cHrvrVY=XPA$B!cY=1&6B?CbMBT39I#XYV6CQgP{Jd`^rkt{5
z@C>Xw-1n#n<4~*r7Q72AYIlCOZR-p+OCwo$;7R3Kk6x<C$l+i-AX(V=bQcN(K0BqN
zDg4PHx0;hfM6dx<I&5Gx*~htvP1J1g9}<c4Mcd^3z^?eBeI8;)`=!KtWktKovC?Au
zo*ct!PQQT2&N#sx;p?gS?0V%<JUu&F71JO&#+b?9f9}?bZm1tOpgqopdKbM$IbyjQ
z`1tgGSf_hy?mwa*s+hy@;hpaV07`|}4>7;0*rVgM&xg%F@!Ax3$gHLi_h>OeiW-gf
zL_Q#2+a+Lw&pl~nkb*XuRHjb--Sl+kpOl3cI|eRBswMLm2AqiY-f2M!{>!RzpW%lu
z;_~EQ%8NTy#$|C+`P4<?NvjZ(q`0QTof+A%Y%d-_1C-(0>}9QmYI2<yz@@rPbVufM
zWBEv)IC^h0t>M2u1s3}Qb2DGW)RCfXmA%s(bUNsbGFr%YZghK+k#E&RcqfGB*j6y?
z2bxTtp=<LJLh)Y(#)qtGM9{!D2dZZLGf#hBrGnvI3e#J*wD_2qfkdBp=XcO&h{8WA
zqAy*Z^?sMXD?jP6Ec-p>18$P_ce1Qxrs8eEc(cvFm5{iFvZ{`cI#rrbl9!6cnf;#6
z4vq)k52uxT$_4gaU0JkhCM%~v{@I$mbK@iSAQ#`04vy^gVoS30Zv;!@lKxWGyF6<{
z|Hl$ahvE8V<Sj0^SU4JsibcCt#>IKtPH}r||Ez{SWG1>VB3m<y6sQTOP19TE!Yp{>
zuCph!>3TswShIYG^QThHN7=dkxvhC2XG1N8ungn)O1PAO=wpIu5KOm5btYGnuT1*t
zw*KWM)KEr+_UDEBHJRbsK*<1bTXL)>vwP)f<>Pk#--dm3)Zx@+6cH?lSlT?kvb7VX
z6Bp6IkY4F5Qs1g=1DZyQ{1q-Y?1Og;zxqGg`hDGCvu?7Ts1f1)Aqy4hHOSA)p2_cV
z!(ZCiN+Ts(uLL_WPD=<-2MKukJ73qBX8(MH-;QHK(Ut9-@NC5926yCg&&Ir_%kJ(&
z8mJkB@w;<4acA6hju7yj^@iFeyc*RX3B-*gL{SSNz5zNV05+MQ?8Aw5*ZU#a^jd);
z8EGlM`t31}nUb3%Wa)ulrVxoNPU7#j{25Ch3q|Xerg_8(ey`3vA$Kz^uM&vgY*4Jx
zPLjaIp$b+@@bSp6;+;ZxayXKgYSEiBrb)=W?{j}fYkVqG&i+Rc`nv#2D&ySo7L7M6
z-!5yC!O2D#9$-H?YTNhzLnC&|mgF%b!ol$U4(ohW($Q<+LnH4m`l(jTIMh~S_Tz~?
ze9xirZVbef%LKmP29Qn**!tcf1v;@JdX{pp$h~_{dfZIbg|+tJ<-~)1(%K=ScTf7j
zIJ;3#sk>UAGosqRJq$s#daV|PtoY*ulgqUm7m>3zO4uwCNCJcb!$k(k!0%<jbdW(b
zfSx|w7Y5Vzm~mZ5IQPe{icM7?`2MpGX2k2Im|{lIJr*~IM&)I?hqOgI%#OX>0t-W?
z^yLZXlf9P80Rh~mPdXxUt@aJ%qS%lCi`~+<Cx468ctWx%@oYP9p&aZtF1M#a9@LFV
zmxvo%zTaW82j&Lot>3+Y6`_<7Z?WuMz{tnTjUGL(XDO<=aHG!Ke~@zfv|>?jga=N<
zif#8L{I3pF){Jab<nKrQ6I$@yXRV9j2sc^lu(J}M74!|QQwjkH92<_kaACRLk;R_w
z!jDrNe{mm?{G;jPSE$2a#G4)wvGy9tqubsi+#>g)j*iN;QMXep4!z_3#xRHn$TI!)
zqmNwqrBAyUTOr{m{}L$hTlKHUGU1MF985DWrs(Ally$pOCR7L2@wI0zCkggDYe`h3
z-e(<y)t`_<T3Se6uxp6?3(QlP<L`?FIu>6f8)~QuhRolTt!$1SAIO*!dmbbB`Q{}i
z1x<sG_tYZS0#fzGkIhhQi{eM80FP$XTGi4Gk>9-ORV7n;u34?FVO;lD*v&n|n#~9G
zFQ@0{J++NlZmVNIqitK1Ie%(J^%kURoS#tIh6&6>-^QOJ)d=-?R$Y+9)$yR{ckA;}
z&8rMh^mIhjjzb{Al-s+H4`m!w3xjsQDq<nhof6sp&``U>gYr(%Q@pEc;OlYPfnl5#
zr1;RzsUyY&XZK9r$~GXo;MmT-6Z6F)e7PxR?RUH8-5vLc!q#p_jK65;rXgK81*cMP
zmhK*k&Tj`qzjhz*N9zXt8Ufz`Q%*s6o%ns2KAHaZUU=)6n)&4!Y|0~`os@q9?34Wv
zu!V6=OP*`mWNpj(EYF+)yFdjI!PiK^P|-lVAP$%)8i*W(4AVygv7pu{O?#i;n-IXF
z&_HtVW_qwWG!Ug$4YOjMfAARjcfp_8a&bSyd`7ou<kopwg`K+{VjG$vgU4C6qUBW6
zfD(?<`(u8ppS1>}hI}`UJ^BY7njF+x=+aHCV_zY;-Q}s)Pex5hYRNDubPzcZs`{nf
zuN7~4Ifvy~jlo>Ibmv<}hTu{A#J$HN+t~}xD_1*duh?7h{iqmy3ZDEuke&SpO6w|C
zqc_z(3JfF=Ma?975ngDoNT6SgCRY`@a%QfEr2JWvKODE_R}H_n6?dtiN}FnhRUTO*
zcNQ73AFXpt8<}m`%8<EQom&Gl3O5zG(=%Fs?+|Jqs28xCDfAg5<Y_mC3fvLm1-MMU
zA;31KlVv`mKoaLif|@N4Jq@>iNg4=VvrtV^!z1)R6x=z8MyjH-22=VL5G>g*l;1j%
z4)!terwq_p<a1_^Ht8yd#VKt?a)+GE?`<k$#`ws*gW!j$QIyGYFWLfIh3f0G-u5OP
zhm(@5Fghd&PF#c+t};I4GvUCbz76;f=y@C}XlRyjj2QtqjSaY<aVlfTqx}+AELpz8
z)@X6qz{tZv&bZ91ae_l+G@EQlt;6;`@5@8N#>ji&RHZ8u>M21ZYw%Dlnb7ZppI|)E
zhaw(2`tS3o=^du>EQ<i2UCYq8h^Fj8bgu;}0!Q2_TY!r6=^*ZyzHo)8&_1;48=dn4
z599;cj_&0oiC>bz_4V)X$`slH1T*U(MnOYKkFC)%vM8jjstH-kB2}3^3xRY45Yuxc
z&xvqFs4(py^=JNp+o*wBe(@$lOlqNO#KvF>Yj08FqxVeP_00gyB^+TE+__ByRd1jo
z6=ml&tSXoWBf%h#VZmF!^eejgmSl1wek~cifye1ANS%~^Bt}_1D0%~|z7X?O9EPIA
zGCuG;nE-qET~hE)#*okkEcIkwEk&NkXz*8!9xus+$-hBUbzO<lO8bPnnt7i4&-XPa
z^bCV0vPR+0m<m9TS^aX#-1sTMnwmwn;#yK%DN?WG9#!w-K3gHh{#F&%{L3tI8FOv%
z2#*|LaF^irydN@ESu|ZvFrEkQw%{rxgQnVz#bW(o2zASCT*!KW2aM%4M1mQp88G4?
zJK2%w$(ZW(9XgMNRN#`$tHc=Iqmko=MT2HKsCK*?atlm-e^Z#Dyb?r_y{R)5aJW8k
z&3(Oo9(@aVovQR}N!hvHh6wL3>gA<X?mw^oJr$+DZ5;P#zV|%u_kAr9D(~5QLP%a+
z?Y6Tj+8sY$Kx;ELR$Zuk36uOJvlgGVXV2X(S)-a4!4oJEfR*y?*z57pQ*iFQri_wJ
zp@=AS*93_23}E?QZYotl^^n7V**Cmk>v7AW;rDO*?~QerA4*Dw><LZd9rKh&#XL#t
zv%S6}Z&fZ0pem1JYqwB>yOitz4JQsa>&5u^7V7j&G(YXs<J5zH0tBx-90YXAFw_o`
z{W(k?Z<<?iSVxp9#bQY)!*+sL6@At}@T|UGC<T`C?7j<0n3fCwZ0H!_M@%mb7SiL}
zoB_5LmfR7n-V<$eslUF$&I9iE`RTq2Nz~eD<-ilb7W~{%^v7MrJ?kxd5m~2irRAPD
zw6_9EpVbXY&IyVyBMNr>G%e%vi}V1KqI8p@Hgf9X_*b>Lo!UaV&G+o_0nbM_yQSm~
zLx4%)@cDQ806arWPD9ndg>t2R18@BZZ&VnqF=?hRUUT>z_L|ba;Mk$pu2E^eMC|+f
z_77*n$q}4y9cd%KDfG1iOzbg;>91jd^oQbg)Dk{@mc{h?_c!@U=Jl;;Y2r7|^@W!z
zYDQJ*<mSZ@&uRtWJ)NqREUUe}ygYG82O#CrrBby5t-9yzS0?NZvO!@*Cfa3w<5ZYm
zNeLftwk+0wnpCx!RE7QzJhr~D)^hkIDs%7X<Uqr$x){ypTWa^E?l>olD-`e|*Ct^-
ztTL<`T90Ri9-o-Yoh`N~Zxpqh(g2^T$`IU#H{Y|)^uFGn^mhHV9;zA@>646FeA0g?
zyj;Gu8V;qX3T-jBIPfE4EuBx17SZ19Z>hW3(c3Q3NHzJDZu09_(fogttbT=7wi!fp
z00?qT)>klmToAi7_XoibR<_mxg0{8-{8qL$e71rXLRP#&d_tCd+*USL;-der4p<N_
zNDkl=68yiP7W|9jMsb>?ffonNe58-EJkd-k?UO}gRZ5y;3GGSDKUP%p=x7Qw3dXWm
zr=yVA^;eAa?{V0iE_?27njTE<yf(f}dl8=tfx%*80srN$ei8jxoO%kXU0O)E#y@)T
z(Vr_}QH7T?2P`z;nEP!c2oT{qOZ8NS$hbb)b2uD-Px)jKsO;M{g*l|cqB$&p9}43p
zecFY4A4&5;k-lbD_iG&p#i~qMs}f2P{9j@MJ6SWCj&i*ZALM?ou%-Au%*u@~PG|h(
zb7$-zLrmYr2N110SbcygH5kr_Ja+2CyHayZ^<f9nXkNDtWu@FxE`XqQhv8RDBNzFX
z3&iOWOVLmTH|*RY%*p-_F{3*A!RziECEEg`QCD?@@!Rg%@e$ladOI%0ff()>XZ_GN
z)Vp1fXk;`u6-FH{Yztd;G&cR43OA_Hjqz;2COyL69gAT{_*Y;hH`>n~Kh=J)aU3hx
zI}Ho^+!0=1;+gHQY`~yLRo}WVUS%EfNj>pN9bWAgdsn#NzY=AeWdG4hUX#xOZOdsL
zeiEI_P@ig?Mu}>f;(|N=f93aDRU$cO4Lz0fn$|CiM=mG2shr)duVD*0%g!ujfMKuJ
z1F;oUV-NQ8v3dchI<I`5ZhhUlW;{We_D|i)))h+xzk#f2;N5d!qxc|dR6%rldN~bw
G^#21*elUXo

diff --git a/search.json b/search.json
index 7055406..35f66fe 100644
--- a/search.json
+++ b/search.json
@@ -459,7 +459,7 @@
     "href": "notes.html",
     "title": "Notes",
     "section": "",
-    "text": "Modified\n\n\nTitle\n\n\nCategories\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFeb 4, 2025\n\n\nPotential cases\n\n\ncases, brainstorming\n\n\n\n\nFeb 17, 2025\n\n\nMethodology notes\n\n\nreading, general thoughts\n\n\n\n\nJan 28, 2025\n\n\nMaelstrom reading notes\n\n\nreading\n\n\n\n\n\nNo matching items",
+    "text": "Modified\n\n\nTitle\n\n\nCategories\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFeb 4, 2025\n\n\nPotential cases\n\n\ncases, brainstorming\n\n\n\n\nFeb 19, 2025\n\n\nMethodology notes\n\n\nreading, general thoughts\n\n\n\n\nJan 28, 2025\n\n\nMaelstrom reading notes\n\n\nreading\n\n\n\n\n\nNo matching items",
     "crumbs": [
       "Notes"
     ]
@@ -476,28 +476,28 @@
     "href": "notes/methodology-notes.html#significant-concepts-and-frameworks",
     "title": "Methodology notes",
     "section": "Significant Concepts and Frameworks",
-    "text": "Significant Concepts and Frameworks\n\nMulticase Studies\nThese notes describe the features, affordances and limitations of case study research, and articules factors correspoding with variable kinds of case studies.\nI do notice a distinction between two schools of thought, which seem to be spearheaded by Stake and Yin. I generally favour Stake’s flexible approach, and it seems well aligned with other methodological works I’ve been reading (e.g. Abbott 2004; Charles C. Ragin and Becker 1992).\n\nStake’s Approach\nIn case-study research, cases represent discrete instances of a phenomenon that inform the researcher about it. The cases are not the subjects of inquiry, and instead represent unique sets of circumstances that frame or contextualize the phenomenon of interest (Stake 2006: 4-7).\nCases usually share common reference to the overall research themes, but exhibit variations that enable a researcher to capture different outlooks or perspectives on matters of common concern. Drawing from multiple cases thus enables comprehensive coverage of a broad topic that no single case may cover on its own (Stake 2006: 23). In other words, cases are contexts that ascribe particular local flavours to the activities I trace, and which I must consider to account fully for the range of motivations, circumstances and affordances that back decisions to perform activities and to implement them in specific ways.\nMoreover, the power of case study research derives from identifying consistencies that relate cases to each other, while simultaneously highlighting how their unique and distinguishing facets contribute to their representativeness of the underlying phenomon. Case study research therefore plays on the tensions that challenge relationships among cases and the phenomenon that they are being called upon to represent (C. C. Ragin 1999: 1139-1140).\nStake (2006: 4-6) uses the term quintain1 to describe the group, category or phenomenon that bind together a collection of cases. A quintain is an object, phenomenon or condition to be studied – “a target, not a bull’s eye” (Stake 2006: 6). “The quintain is the arena or holding company or umbrella for the cases we will study” (Stake 2006: 6). The quintain is the starting point for multi-case research.\n1 The term refers to a medieval jousting target: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintain_(jousting)According to Stake (2006: 6):\n\nMulticase research starts with the quintain. To understand it better, we study some of its single cases — its sites or manifestations. But it is the quintain we seek to understand. We study what is similar and different about the cases in order to understand the quintain better.\n\nStake (2006: 8) then goes on:\n\nWhen the purpose of a case is to go beyond the case, we call it an “instrumental” case study When the main and enduring interest is in the case itself, we call it “intrinsic” case study (Stake 1988). With multicase study and its strong interest in the quintain, the interest in the cases will be primarily instrumental.\n\nAbbott’s (2004: 22) characaterization of Small-N comparison is very reminiscient of Stake’s (2006) account of the case-quintain dialectic:\n\nSmall-N comparison attempts to combine the advantages of single-case analysis with those of multicase analysis, at the same time trying to avoid the disadantages of each. On the one hand, it retains much information about each case. On the other, it compares the different cases to test arguments in ways that are impossible with a single case. By making these detailed comparisons, it tries to avoid the standard critcism of single-case analysis — that one can’t generalize from a single case — as well as the standard criticism of multicase analysis — that it oversimplifies and changes the meaning of variables by removing them from their context.\n\nIt should be noted that case study research limits my ability to define causal relationships or to derive findings that may be generalized across the whole field of epidemiology. This being said, case study research allows me to articulate the series of inter-woven factors that impact how epidedemiological researchers coordinate and participate in data-sharing initiatives, while explicitly accounting for and drawing from the unique and situational contexts that frame each case.\nStake (2006: 23) recommends selecting between 4-10 cases and identifies three main criteria for selecting cases:\n\nIs the case relevant to the quintain?\nDo the cases provide diversity across contexts?\nDo the cases provide good opportunities to learn about complexity and contexts?\n\n\nFor qualitative fieldwork, we will usually draw a purposive sample of cases, a sample tailored to our study; this will build in variety and create opportunities for intensive study (Stake 2006: 24).2\n2 Though Yin (2014: 40-444) is dismissive of such use of the term “sample” since he sees case study research as only generalizable to similar situations, and not to a general population from which a sample is typically said to be drawn. I agree with this focus on concrete situations over Stake’s prioritization of theory-building as an end unto itself.\nStake’s (2010: 122) prioritizes doing research to understand something or to improve something, and I generally agree with his rationalization; research helps reframe problems and establish different decision options.\n\n\nYin’s Approach\nAccording to Yin (2014: 16), “a case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the”case”) in depth and within its real-world context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident.”\nHe goes on to document some features of a case study: “A case study inquiry copes with the technically distinctive situation in which there will be many more variables of interest than data points, and as one result relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion, and as another result benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis.” (Yin 2014: 17)\nYin (2014) is more oriented toward what he refers to as a realist perspective, which he pits against relativist and interpretivist perspectives (used interchangably, it seems), and which I might refer to as constructivist. He characterizes relativist perspectives as “acknowledging multiple realities having multiple meanings, with findings that are observer dependent”. His prioriting of a realist approach corresponds with the analysis by Yazan (2015), who compared Yin with Stake and Merriam. According to Yazan (2015: 137), Yin evades making statements about his epistemic commitments, and is characterized as post-positivist.\nYin (2014) is very concerned with research design in case study research He posits that, in a colloquial sense, “a research design is a logical plan for getting from here to there, where here may be defined as the initial set of questions to be answered, and there is some set of conclusions (answers) about these questions.” (Yin 2014: 28)\nYin distinguishes between a research design and a work plan. A research design deals with a logical problem, whereas a work plan deals with a logistical problem. Seems reminiscient of Brian Cantwell Smith’s distinction between skeletons and outlines.\nYin lists five components of a research design:\n\nA case study’s questions;\nits propositions, if any;\nits unit(s) of analysis;\nthe logic linking the data to the propositions; and\nthe criteria for interpreting the findings.\n\nInterestingly, I have been instinctively following these steps, and am currently hovering somewhere between components 3 and 4, while dipping back to 2 once in a while too.\nThe problem of defining the unit of analysis is salient to me right now. According to Yin (2014: 32), the unit of analysis may change as the project progresses, depending on initial misconceptions (he uses the example of a unit of analysis changing from neighbourhoods to small groups, as contextualized by the socio-geographical entity of the neighbourhood, which is laden with issues of class, race, etc). In my own situation, the unit of analysis may hover between the harmonization initiative, the people, activities or infrastructures that make it work.\nIn the section on criteria for interpreting the findings, Yin emphasizes the role of rival theories, which is akin to a concern with falsifiability as a means of validating truth claims, and which betrays his positivist leanings. This may be compared with Stake’s emphasis on triangulation, which is more concerned with internal cohesiveness. Similarly, Yin cites Corbin and Strauss regarding the role of theory or theoretical propositions in research design, which similarly reveals a concern with rigorous upfront planning and strict adherence to research design as a key aspect of deriving valid findings.\nRegarding generalizability, Yin (2014: 40-41) states that “Rather than thinking about your case as a sample, you should think of it as the opportunity to shed empirical light about some theoretical concepts or principles, not unlike the motive of a laboratory investigator in conceiving of and then conducting a new experiment.” He goes on to state that case studies tend to strive for analytic generalizations that go beyond the specific case that has been studied, and which apply to other concrete situations rather than just abstract theory building.\n\n\nLogistics of case study design\n\nPreparing to select case study data\nYin (2014: 72-23) identifies five desired attributes for collecting case studt data:\n\nAsk good questions — and interpret answers fairly.\n\n\n“As you collect case study evidence, you must quickly review the evidence and continually ask yourself why events or perceptions appear as they do.” (73)\nA good indicator of having asked good questions is mental and emotional exhaustion at the end of each fieldwork day, due to the depletion of “analytic energy” associated with being attention on your toes. (73-74)\n\n\nBe a good “listener” not trapped by existing ideologies or preconceptions.\n\n\nSensing through multiple modalities, not just spoken words.\nAlso subtext, as elicited through choices of terms used, mood and affective components. (74)\n\n\nStay adaptive, so that newly encountered situations can be seen as opportunities, not threats.\n\n\nRemember the original purpose but willing to adapt to unanticipated circumnstances. (74)\nEmphasize balancing adaptability with rigour, but not with rigidity. (75)\n\n\nHave a firm grasp of what is being studied, even when in an exploratory mode.\n\n\nNeed to do more than merely record data, but interpret information as they are being collected and to know immedately whether there are contradictions or complementary statements to follow-up on. (75-76)\n\n\nAvoid biases of being sensitive to contrary evidence, also knowing how to conduct research ethically.\n\n\nMaintain strong professional competence, including keeping up with related research, ensuring accuracy, striving for credibility, and knowledging and mitigating against bias.\n\nYin advocates for adoption of case study protocols. He provides an example of a table of contents for case study protocols, which generally comprise four sections:\n\nOverview of the case study\nData collection procedures\nData collection questions\nGuide for the case study report\n\n\n\nTriangulation\nTriangulation is a process of gaining assurance. Also sometimes called crystallization.\n“Each important finding needs to have at least three (often more) confirmations and assurances that key meanings are not being overlooked.” (Stake 2006: 33) Triangulation is a process of repetitous data gathering and critical review of what is being said. (Stake 2006: 34)\nWhat needs triangulation? (Stake 2006: 35-36)\n\nIf the description is trivial or beyond question, there is no need to triangulate.\nIf the description is relevant and debatable, there is much need to triangulate.\nIf the data are critical to a main assertion, there is much need to triangulate.\nIf the data are evidence for a controversial finding, there is much need to triangulate.\nIf a statement is clearly a speaker’s interpretation, there is little need to triangulate the quotation but not its content.\n\nStake (2006: 37) cites Denzin (1989) who highlighted several kinds of triangulation, leading to a few advisories:\n\nFind ways to use multiple rather than single observers of the same thing.\nUse second and third perspectives, i.e. the views of teachers, student and parents.\nUse more than one research method on the same thing, i.e. document review and interview.\nCheck carefully to decide how much the total description warrants generalization.\n\nDo your conclusions generalize across other times or places?\nDo your conclusions about the aggregate generalize to individuals?\nDo findings of the interaction among individuals in one group pertain to other groups?\nDo findings of the aggregate of these people generalized to a population?\n\n\n\n\nCross-Case Analysis Procedure\nStake (2006: Chapter 3) lays out a procedure for deriving synthetic findings from data collected across cases. He frames this in terms of a dialectic between cases and quintains. He identifies three tracks (Stake 2006: 46):\n\nTrack 1: Maintains the case findings and the situationality.\nTrack 2: Merges similar findings, maintaining a little of the situationality.\nTrack 3: The most quanitative track, shifts the focus from findings to factors.\n\nAccording to Stake, case reports should be created independently and then brought together by a single individual when working in a collaborative project. In keeping with the case-quintain dialectic, this integration must involve strategically putting the cases aside and bringing them back in to identify convergences and divergences, similarities and differences, normalitities and discrepancies among them.\nThere is some detailed discussion about different kinds of statements, i.e. themes, findings, factors and assertions, but I find this a bit too much detail for me to get at at this point in mymethodological planning. In general though, Stake documents a process whereby an analyst navigates back and forth between the general and the situational, presenting tentativr statements that are shored up, modified or discarded through testing compatability of the evidence across cases.\n\n\nSingle cases\nStake (2000) is concerned with identifying what can be learned from a single case. He (2000: 437) identifies three kinds of cases:\n\nIntrinsic case studies as being driven by a desire to understand the particular case.\nInstrumental case studies are examined “mainly to provide insight into an issue or to redraw a generalization.”\nCollective case studies “investigate a phenomenon, population or general condition”.\n\nStake (2000) frames case research around a tension between the particular and the general, which echoes the case-quintain dilemma he described in (Stake 2006: 4-6).\n\n\nSome scattered practical guidance\nStake (2006: 18-22) provides a detailed and realistic overview of common challenges involved in collaborative qualitative research. This could be handy in future work when planning a multicase project involving multiple researchers.\nStake (2006: 29-33) provides guidance on how to plan and conduct interviews in multicase research, including a series of helpful prompts and questions to ask yourself while designing the interview. One thing that stands out is his recommendation that an interview should be more about the interviewee than about the case. It’s necessary to find out about the interviewee to understand their interpretations, but what they reveal about the quintain is more important.\nOn page 34, Stake (2006) also provides some practical tips for documenting and storing data, after Huberman and Miles (1994).\nStake (2006: Chapter 4) includes a chapter on procedures for reporting the findings, and I may return to this later on once I need to initiative this phase of work. It addresses concerns about how to articulate comparisons, concerns about generalization, and how to handle advocacy based on findings.\nSee Stake (2006) Chapter 5 for a step-by-step overview of a multicase study analysis. The rest of the volume after that includes three very detailed examples from his own work.\n\n\n\n\nGrounded theory\nThese notes are largely drawn from Charmaz (2000), which I understand to be a fairly balanced and comprehensive overview of the Glaser / Strauss and Corbin debate, and of the situation of specific methods and techniques in relation to these different stances. I also value Charmaz’s position as someone who subscribes to her constructivist approach.\nAccording to Charmaz(2000: 509):\n\nEssentially, grounded theory methods consist of systematic inductive guidelines for collecting and analyzing data to build middle-range theoretical frameworks that explain the collected data.\n\nCharmaz(2000: 511) goes on to situate grounded theory in relation to what was the norm prior to its invention:\n\nGlaser and Strauss’s (1967) work was revolutionary because it challenged (a) arbitrary divisions between theory and research, (b) views of qualitative research as primarily a precursor to more “rigorous” quantitative methods, (c) claims that the quest for rigor made qualitative research illegitimate, (d) beliefs that qualitative methods are impressionistic and unsystematic, (e) separation of data collection and analysis, and (f) assumptions that qualitative research could produce only descriptive case studies rather than theory development (Charmaz 1995).\n\nPrior to Glaser and Strauss (1967), qualitative analysis was taught rather informally — they led the way in providing written guidelines for systematic qualitative data analysis with explicit procedures for data analysis (Charmaz 2000: 512)\nGlaser brought his very positivist assumptions from his work at Columbia, and Strauss’ work in Chicago with Herbert Blumer and Robert Park infused a pragmatic philosophical approach to the study of process, action and meaning that reflects symbolic interactionism.\n\nGlaser\nGlaser’s position comes close to traditional positivism, with assumptions of an objective, external reality and a neutral observer who discovers data. and a reductionist form of inquiry of manageable research problems. According to Charmaz (2000: 511), regarding Glaser’s approach:\n\nTheoretical categories must be developed from analysis of the collected data and must fit them; these categories must explain the data they subsume. This grounded theorists cannot shop their disciplinary stores for preconceived concepts and dress their data in them. Any existing concept must earn its way into the analysis. … The relevance of a grounded theory derives from its offering analytic explanations of actual problems and basic processes in the research setting. A grounded theory is durable because researchers can modify their emerging or established analyses as conditions change or further data are collected.\n\n\n\nCorbin and Strauss\nStrauss and Corbin assume an objective reality, aim toward unbiased data collection, propose a series of technical procedures, and espouses verification. However, they are postpositivism because they propose giving voice to their respondents,3 representing them as accurately as possible, discovering and reckoning with how their respodents’ views on reality differ from their own, and reflecting on the research process as one way of knowing.\n3 Charmaz uses the term “giving voice” in this specific context. I’m not sure if this is meant to represent Strauss and Corbin’s attitude, and whether this is an accurate representation on their views, but in my mind this should be framed as elevating, amplifying or re-articulating respondents’ voices (and this is a tenet of constructivist grounded theory in general, which derives from Charmaz). My take diverges from the position that we “give voice” to respondents in that it acknowledges (1) that the voices are already there, (2) that respondents are in fact giving us their voices, and (3) that the researcher plays an active editorial role, transforming the respondents’ elicitations into a format that is more amenable to analysis.Corbin and Strauss (1990) “gained readers but lost the sense of emergence and open-ended character of Strauss’s earlier volume and much of his empirical work. The improved and more accessible second edition of Basics (Strauss and Corbin 1998) reads as less prescriptive and aims to lead readers to a new way of thinking about their research and about the world.” (Charmaz 2000: 512)\nStrauss apparently became more insistent that grounded theory should be more verificational in nature in personal communications.\nGlaser (1992) responded to Strauss and Corbin (1990), repudiating what he perceived as forcing preconceived questions and frameworks on the data. Glaser considered it better to allow theory to “emerge” from the data, i.e. to let the data speak for themselves.\nCharmaz identifies these two approaches as having a lot in common: hey both advocate for mitigating factors that would hinder objectivity and minimize intrusion of the researcher’s subjectivity, and they are both embedded in positivist attitudes, with a researcher sitting outside the observed reality; Glaser exemplifies these through discovering and coding data, and using systematic comparative methods, whereas Strauss and Corbin maintain a similar distance through their analytical questions, hypotheses and methodological applications. They both engage in “silent authorship” and usually write about their data as distant experts (Charmaz and Mitchell 1996).\n\n\nConstuctivist Grounded Theory\n\nConstructivist grounded celebrates firsthand knowledge of empirical worlds, takes a middle ground between postmodernsm and positivism, and offers accessible methods for taking qualitative research into the 21st century. (510)\n\n\nThe power of grounded theory lies in its tools for understanding empirical worlds. We can reclaim these tools from their positivist underpinnings to form a revised, more open-ended practice of grounded theory that stresses its emergent, constructivist elements. We can use grounded theory methods as flexible, heuristic strategies rather than as formulaic procedures. (510)\n\nThree aspects to Charmaz’s argument (510):4\n4 Very much in line with the pragmatist turn of the late ’90s and early ’00s, as also documented by Lucas (2019: 54-57) in the context of archaeological theory, vis-a-vis positivism, postmodernism, and settling on a middle ground between them.\nGrounded theory strategies need not be rigid or prescriptive;\na focus on meaning while using grounded theory furthers, rather than limits, interpretive understanding; and\nwe can adopt grounded theory strategies without embracing the positivist leanings of earlier proponents of grounded theory.\n\nRepudiation of the notion that data speak for themselves, that data do not lie. Recognition that data are constructs of the rsearch process, are framed by the questions we ask informants and the methodological tools of our collection procedures.\nCharmaz (2000: 515) advocates for what seems to be a dialogical approach to coding, between researcher and the data:\n\nWe should interact with our data and pose questions to them while coding. Coding helps us to gain a new perspective on our material and to focus further data collection, and may lead us in unforeseen directions. Unline quantitative research that requires data to fit into preconceived standardized codes, the researcher’s interpretations of data shape his or her emergent codes in grounded theory.\n\nDistinguishes articulates open/initial coding as proceeding line by line to get a general sense of what the data contains. It is meant to keep the researcher close to the data, to remain attuned to the subjects’ views of their realities.\n\nLine-by-line coding sharpens our use of sensitizing concepts — that is, those background ideas that inform the overall research problem. Sensitizing concepts offer eays of seeing, organizing, and understanding experience; they are embedded in our disciplinary emphases and perspectival proclivities. Although sensitizing conceots may deepen perception, they provide starting points for building analysis, not ending points for evading it. We may use sensitizing concepts only as points of departure from which to study the data.\n\nMuch of the rest of the Charmaz (2000) paper is an overview of coding and memoing methods, as well as theoretical sampling. The emphasis is on situating these techniques in the Glaser / Strauss and Corbin debate, and it will be better to refer to Charmaz (2014) for in-depth notes on these techniques.\nCharmaz (2000: 521-522) provides an apt account of a significant critique of grounded theory, and poses her constructivist approach as a potential means of resolving it. Specifically, she refers to the notion that grounded theory (as traditionally conceived by both Glaser and Strauss and Corbin) “fractures” the data, making them easier to digest in an analytical sense, but also making it more difficult to engage with in a holistic manner. This is precisely the point of the original approach, to present qualitative data as data — as conceived and valued by quantitative researchers, i.e. as discrete, corpuscular, disembodied, re-arrangable and distant entities. The text of these two large paragraphs is copied here:\n\nConrad (1990) and Riessman (1990) suggest that “fracturing the data” in grounded theory research might limit understanding because grounded theorists aim for analysis rather than the portrayal of subjects’ experience in its fullness. From a grounded theory perspective, fracturing the data means creating codes and categories as the researcher defines themes within the data. Glaser and Strauss (1967) propose this strategy for several reasons: (a) to help the researcher avoid remaining immersed in anecdotes and stories, and subsequently unconsciously adopting subjects’ perspectives; (b) to prevent the researcher’s becoming immobilized and overwhelmed by voluminous data; and (c) to create a way for the researcher to organize and interpret data. However, criticisms of fracturing the data imply that grounded theory methods lead to separating the experience from the experiencing subject, the meaning from the story, and the viewer from the viewed. In short, the criticisms assume that the grounded theory method (a) limits entry into subjects’ worlds, and thus reduces understanding of their experience; (b) curtails representation of both the social world and subjective experience; (c) relies upon the viewer’s authority as expert observer; and (d) posits a set of objectivist procedures on which the analysis rests.\nResearchers can use grounded theory methods to further their knowledge of subjective experience and to expand its representation while neither remaining external from it nor accepting objectivist assumptions and procedures. A constructivist grounded theory assumes that people create and maintain meaningful worlds through dialectical processes of conferring meaning on their realities and acting within them (Bury 1986; Mishler 1981). Thus social reality does not exist independent of human action. Certainly, my approach contrasts with a number of grounded theory studies, methodological statements, and research texts (see, e.g., Chenitz and Swanson 1986; Glaser 1992; Martin and Turner 1986; Strauss and Corbin 1990; Turner 1981). By adopting a constructivist grounded theory approach, the researcher can move grounded theory methods further into the realm of interpretive social science consistent with a Blumerian (1969) emphasis on meaning, without assuming the existence of a unidimensional external reality. A constructivist grounded theory recognizes the interactive nature of both data collection and analysis, resolves recent criticisms of the method, and reconciles positivist assumptions and postmodernist critiques. Moreover, a constructivist grounded theory fosters the development of qualitative traditions through the study of experience from the standpoint of those who live it.\n\nCharmaz’s (2000: 523) proposal for a re-visioned grounded theory poses research as a materializing process:\n\nA re-visioned grounded theory must take epistemological questions into account. Grounded theory can provide a path for researchers who want to continue to develop qualitative traditions without adopting the positivistic trappings of objectivism and universality. Hence the further development of a constructivist grounded theory can bridge past positivism and a revised future form of interpretive inquiry. A revised grounded theory preserves realism through gritty, empirical inquiry and sheds positivistic proclivities by becoming increasingly interpretive.\n\nCharmaz (2000: 523) addresses realism and truth in constructivist grounded theory, and explicitly relates it to Blumerian situated interactionism:\n\nA constructivist grounded theory distinguishes between the real and the true. The constructivist approach does not seek truth — single, universal, and lasting. Still, it remains realist because it addresses human realities and assumes the existence of real worlds. However, neither human realities nor real worlds are unidimensional. We act within and upon our realities and worlds and thus develop dialectical relations among what we do, think, and feel. The constructivist approach assumes that what we take as real, as objective knowledge and truth, is based upon our perspective (Schwandt 1994). The pragmatist underpinnings in symbolic interactionism emerge here. Thomas and Thomas (1928: 572) proclaim, “If human beings define their situations as real, they are real in their consequences”. Following their theorem, we must try to find what research participants define as real and where their definitions of reality take them. The constructivist approach also fosters our self-consciousness about what we attribute to our subjects and how, when, and why researchers portray these definitions as real. Thus the research products do not constitute the reality of the respondents’ reality. Rather, each is a rendering, one interpretation among multiple interpretations, of a shared or individual reality. That interpretation is objectivist only to the extent that it seeks to construct analyses that show how respondents and the social scientists who study them construct those realities — without viewing those realities as unidimensional, universal, and immutable. Researchers’ attention to detail in the constructivist approach sensitizes them to multiple realities and the multiple viewpoints within them; it does not represent a quest to capture a single reality.\nThus we can recast the obdurate character of social life that Blumer (1969) talks about. In doing so, we change our conception of it from a real world to be discovered, tracked, and categorized to a world made real in the minds and through the words and actions of its members. Thus the grounded theorist constructs an image of a reality, not the reality — that is, objective, true, and external.\n\nOn the other hand, Charmaz (2000: 524) frames objectivist grounded theory as believing in some kind of truth:\n\nObjectivist grounded theory accepts the positivistic assumption of an external world that can be described, analyzed, explained, and predicted: truth, but with a small t. That is, objectivist grounded theory is modifiable as conditions change. It assumes that different observers will discover this world and describe it in similar ways That’s correct — to the extent that subjects have comparable experiences (e.g., people with different chronic illnesses may experience uncertainty, intrusive regimens, medical dominance) and viewers bring similar que-tions, perspectives, methods, and, subsequently, concepts to analyze those experiences. Objectivist grounded theorists often share assumptions with their research participants — particularly the professional participants. Perhaps more likely, they assume that respondents share their meanings. For example, Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) discussion of independence and dependence assumes that these terms hold the same meanings for patients as for researchers.\n\nCharmaz (2000: 525) further embeds construvist grounded theory as a way to fulfill Blumer’s symbolic interactionism:\n\nWhat helps researchers develop a constructivist grounded theory? How might they shape the data collection and analysis phases? Gaining depth and understanding in their work means that they can fulfill Blumer’s (1969) call for “intimate familiarity” with respondents and their worlds (see also Lofland and Lofland 1984, 1995). In short, constructing constructivism means seeking meanings — both respondents’ meanings and researchers’ meanings.\n\nCharmaz (2000: 524) on the concretization of procedures from what were orginally meant to be guidelines:\n\nGuidelines such as those offered by Strauss and Corbin (1990) structure objectivist grounded theorists’ work. These guidelines are didactic and prescriptive rather than emergent and interactive. Sanders (1995: 92) refers to grounded theory procedures as “more rigorous than thou instructions about how information should be pressed into a mold”. Strauss and Corbin categorize steps in the process with scientific terms such as axial coding and conditional matrix (Strauss 1987; Strauss and Corbin 1990, 1994). As grounded theory methods become more articulated, categorized, and elaborated, they seem to take on a life of their own. Guidelines turn into procedures and are reified into immutable rules, unlike Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) original flexible strategies. By taking grounded theory methods as prescriptive scientific rules, proponents further the positivist cast to obiectivist grounded theory.\n\n\nOn the modes of reasoning behind grounded theory\nKelle (2005) is an overview of the Glaser / Strauss and Corbin split. References to Kelle (2005) have no page numbers since it is published in an online-only journal and does not specify paragraph numbers.\nHighlights a primary impetus behind Glaser and Strauss (1967), which used political analogies to distinguish between “theoretical capitalists” and “proletariat testers”, and unify the field of sociology by de-centering emphasis on theories developed by “great men”.\nA common thread in this paper is sensitivity to the practical challenges of actually doing grounded theory according to Glaser’s approach:\n\nThe infeasibility of an inductivist research strategy which demands an empty head (instead of an “open mind”) cannot only be shown by epistemological arguments, it can also be seen in research practice. Especially novices in qualitative research with the strong desire to adhere to what they see as a basic principle and hallmark of Grounded Theory — the “emergence” of categories from the data — often experience a certain difficulty: in open coding the search for adequate coding categories can become extremely tedious and a subject of sometimes numerous and endless team sessions, especially if one hesitates to explicitly introduce theoretical knowledge. The declared purpose to let codes emerge from the data then leads to an enduring proliferation of the number of coding categories which makes the whole process insurmountable.\n\nKelle (2005) basically takes down the original Glaser and Strauss (1967) and subsequent reflection on theoretecal sensitivity (Glaser 1978). He highlights fundamental contraditions and oversights with regards to the role of theory in grounded theory, specifically with regards to the notion that such research can be accomplished with inductive purity:\n\nConsequently, in the most early version of Grounded Theory the advice to employ theoretical sensitivity to identify theoretical relevant phenomena coexists with the idea that theoretical concepts “emerge” from the data if researchers approach the empirical field with no preconceived theories or hypotheses. Both ideas which have conflicting implications are not integrated with each other in the Discovery book. Furthermore, the concept of theoretical sensitivity is not converted into clear cut methodological rules: it remains unclear how a theoretically sensitive researcher can use previous theoretical knowledge to avoid drowning in the data. If one takes into account the frequent warnings not to force theoretical concepts on the data one gets the impression that a grounded theorist is advised to introduce suitable theoretical concepts ad hoc drawing on implicit theoretical knowledge but should abstain from approaching the empirical data with ex ante formulated hypotheses.\n\nKelle (2005) recognizes that Glaser identified a series of “theoretical families” to help assist with the practical experience of coding. I find it somewhat interesting that many of the terms in these first families are very reminiscient of so-called “natural language”, as used in the wave of cybernets that was contemporary with Glaser (1978) and which largely dealt with “expert systems”.\n\nIn the book “Theoretical Sensitivity” (1978) GLASER presents an extended list of terms which can be used for the purpose of theoretical coding loosely structured in the form of so called theoretical “coding families”. Thereby various theoretical concepts stemming from different (sociological, philosophical or everyday) contexts are lumped together, as for example:\n\nterms, which relate to the degree of an attribute or property (“degree family”), like “limit”, “range”, “extent”, “amount” etc.,\nterms, which refer to the relation between a whole and its elements (“dimension family”), like “element”, “part”, “facet”, “slice”, “sector”, “aspect”, “segment” etc.,\nterms, which refer to cultural phenomena (“cultural family”) like “social norms”, “social values”, “social beliefs” etc.\n\n\nThis is substantiated by other observations by Kelle (2005) that ad hoc coding actually follows implicit theoretical knowledge:\n\nOne of the most crucial differences between GLASER’s and STRAUSS’ approaches of Grounded Theory lies in the fact that STRAUSS and CORBIN propose the utilization of a specified theoretical framework based on a certain understanding of human action, whereas GLASER emphasises that coding as a process of combining “the analyst’s scholarly knowledge and his research knowledge of the substantive field” (1978, p.70) has to be realised ad hoc, which means that it has often to be conducted on the basis of a more or less implicit theoretical background knowledge.\n\nand that the Glaserian approach is better suited for more experienced, rather than novice sociologists, who will have internalized the theory that they then apply in their coding.\nKelle then goes on to address how grounded theory can or can not be applied in alignment with inductivist or hypothetic-deductivist reasoning, and raises abductive reasoning an an alternative means of arriving at legitimate and verifiable conclusions. There is too much detail in the paper to copy here.\nBut here is another nice conclusive gem from the end:\n\nWhereas STRAUSS and CORBIN pay a lot of attention to the question how grounded categories and propositions can be further validated, GLASER’s concept shows at least a gleam of epistemological fundamentalism (or “certism”, LAKATOS 1978) especially in his defence of the inductivism of early Grounded Theory. “Grounded theory looks for what is, not what might be, and therefore needs no test” (GLASER 1992, p.67). Such sentences carry the outmoded idea that empirical research can lead to final certainties and truths and that by using an inductive method the researcher may gain the ability to conceive “facts as they are” making any attempt of further corroboration futile.\n\n\n\nRebuttals by Glaser\nGlaser (2002) constitutes a rebuttal to Charmaz (2000). As Bryant (2003) points out in his response to Glaser (2002), it is very angry, polemical and irrational. I don’t want to go too in depth with the fundamental problems with Glaser’s response (see Bryant’s paper for the details), but the gist is that Glaser never really got the message about data being inherently constructed by researchers decisions, actions and circumstances. Glaser seems to continue believing in the inherent neutrality of data as a matter of faith.\nThis being said, Glaser (2002) did highlight the large emphasis on descriptive rather than explanatory potential in Charmaz’s approach. This aligns with my own apprehensions when I try to address the relevance of my work. I tend to use the term “articulate” as a way to frame my work as descriptive, but in a way that lends value, and this very fuzzy distinction between the power of identying the shapes and relationships among things and explaining their causes and effects in a generalizable way (i.e., theories, or explanations), still somehow troubles me. I wonder if Glaser is drawing a false distinction here, and through that, a false prioritization of explanation over description as a desired outcome. This would put my mind at ease, as would dismissing Glaser’s dismissal of people who simply don’t know how to do the “real” grounded theory (which, in his mind, include all feminist and critical researchers).\n\n\nOn the utility of grounded theory\nI completely agree with this statement from Clarke (2003: 555):\n\nTo address the needs and desires for empirical understandings of the complex and heterogeneous worlds emerging through new world orderings, new methods are requisite (Haraway 1999). I believe some such methods should be epistemologically/ ontologically based in the pragmatist soil that has historically nurtured symbolic interactionism and grounded theory. Through Mead, an interactionist grounded theory has always had the capacity to be distinctly perspectival in ways fully com patible with what are now understood as situated knowledges. This fundamental and always already postmodern edge of a grounded theory founded in symbolic interactionism makes it worth renovating.\n\nThis is super interesting, and really contextualizes how Strauss imagined grounded theory to be useful for him:\n\nSome years ago, Katovich and Reese (1993:400–405) interestingly argued that Strauss’s negotiated order and related work recuperatively pulled the social around the postmodern turn through its methodological [grounded theoretical] recognition of the partial, tenuous, shifting, and unstable nature of the empirical world and its constructedness. I strongly agree and would argue that Strauss also furthered this “postmodernization of the social” through his conceptualizations of social worlds and arenas as modes of understanding the deeply situated yet always also fluid orga nizational elements of negotiations. He foreshadowed what later came to be known as postmodern assumptions: the instability of situations; characteristic changing, porous boundaries of both social worlds and arenas; social worlds seen as mutually constitutive/coproduced through negotiations taking place in arenas; negotiations as central social processes hailing that “things can always be otherwise”; and so on. Significantly, negotiations constitute discourses that also signal micropolitics of power as well as “the usual” meso/macrostructural elements—power in its more fluid forms (e.g., Foucault 1979, 1980). Through integrating the social worlds/arenas/ negotiations framework with grounded theory as a new conceptual infrastructure, I hope to sustain and extend the methodological contribution of grounded theory to understanding and elaborating what has been meant by “the social” in social life — before, during, and after the postmodern turn.\n\nIt also echoes Charmaz’s vision of grounded theory as a powerful too, and Bryant’s (2003) call to “look at what Glaser and Strauss actually did, rather than what they claimed — and continued to claim — they were doing” to uncover “the basis for a powerful research approach”. Bryant (2003) further cites Baszanger and Dodier (1997), who characterize grounded theory as a method “consisting of accumulating a series of individual cases, of analyzing them as a combination between different logics of action that coexist not only in the field under consideration, but even within these individuals or during their encounters”. Bryant (2003) summarizes this by stating that “[t]he aim of such methods is generalization rather than totalization, with the objective of producing”a combinative inventory of possible situations”.\n\n\n\nTheoretical sampling\nSee Charmaz (2000): 519-520.\nFrom Clarke (2003: 557):\n\nUnique to this approach has been, first, its requiring that analysis begin as soon as there are data. Coding begins immediately, and theorizing based on that coding does as well, however provisionally (Glaser 1978). Second, “sampling” is driven not necessarily (or not only) by attempts to be “representative” of some social body or population (or its heterogeneities) but especially and explicitly by theoretical con cerns that have emerged in the provisional analysis. Such “theoretical sampling” focuses on finding new data sources (persons or things) that can best explicitly ad dress specific theoretically interesting facets of the emergent analysis. Theoretical sampling has been integral to grounded theory from the outset, remains a fundamen tal strength of this analytic approach, and is crucial for the new situational analyses."
+    "text": "Significant Concepts and Frameworks\n\nMulticase Studies\nThese notes describe the features, affordances and limitations of case study research, and articules factors correspoding with variable kinds of case studies.\nI do notice a distinction between two schools of thought, which seem to be spearheaded by Stake and Yin. I generally favour Stake’s flexible approach, and it seems well aligned with other methodological works I’ve been reading (e.g. Abbott 2004; Charles C. Ragin and Becker 1992).\n\nStake’s Approach\nIn case-study research, cases represent discrete instances of a phenomenon that inform the researcher about it. The cases are not the subjects of inquiry, and instead represent unique sets of circumstances that frame or contextualize the phenomenon of interest (Stake 2006: 4-7).\nCases usually share common reference to the overall research themes, but exhibit variations that enable a researcher to capture different outlooks or perspectives on matters of common concern. Drawing from multiple cases thus enables comprehensive coverage of a broad topic that no single case may cover on its own (Stake 2006: 23). In other words, cases are contexts that ascribe particular local flavours to the activities I trace, and which I must consider to account fully for the range of motivations, circumstances and affordances that back decisions to perform activities and to implement them in specific ways.\nMoreover, the power of case study research derives from identifying consistencies that relate cases to each other, while simultaneously highlighting how their unique and distinguishing facets contribute to their representativeness of the underlying phenomon. Case study research therefore plays on the tensions that challenge relationships among cases and the phenomenon that they are being called upon to represent (C. C. Ragin 1999: 1139-1140).\nStake (2006: 4-6) uses the term quintain1 to describe the group, category or phenomenon that bind together a collection of cases. A quintain is an object, phenomenon or condition to be studied – “a target, not a bull’s eye” (Stake 2006: 6). “The quintain is the arena or holding company or umbrella for the cases we will study” (Stake 2006: 6). The quintain is the starting point for multi-case research.\n1 The term refers to a medieval jousting target: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintain_(jousting)According to Stake (2006: 6):\n\nMulticase research starts with the quintain. To understand it better, we study some of its single cases — its sites or manifestations. But it is the quintain we seek to understand. We study what is similar and different about the cases in order to understand the quintain better.\n\nStake (2006: 8) then goes on:\n\nWhen the purpose of a case is to go beyond the case, we call it an “instrumental” case study When the main and enduring interest is in the case itself, we call it “intrinsic” case study (Stake 1988). With multicase study and its strong interest in the quintain, the interest in the cases will be primarily instrumental.\n\nAbbott’s (2004: 22) characaterization of Small-N comparison is very reminiscient of Stake’s (2006) account of the case-quintain dialectic:\n\nSmall-N comparison attempts to combine the advantages of single-case analysis with those of multicase analysis, at the same time trying to avoid the disadantages of each. On the one hand, it retains much information about each case. On the other, it compares the different cases to test arguments in ways that are impossible with a single case. By making these detailed comparisons, it tries to avoid the standard critcism of single-case analysis — that one can’t generalize from a single case — as well as the standard criticism of multicase analysis — that it oversimplifies and changes the meaning of variables by removing them from their context.\n\nIt should be noted that case study research limits my ability to define causal relationships or to derive findings that may be generalized across the whole field of epidemiology. This being said, case study research allows me to articulate the series of inter-woven factors that impact how epidedemiological researchers coordinate and participate in data-sharing initiatives, while explicitly accounting for and drawing from the unique and situational contexts that frame each case.\nStake (2006: 23) recommends selecting between 4-10 cases and identifies three main criteria for selecting cases:\n\nIs the case relevant to the quintain?\nDo the cases provide diversity across contexts?\nDo the cases provide good opportunities to learn about complexity and contexts?\n\n\nFor qualitative fieldwork, we will usually draw a purposive sample of cases, a sample tailored to our study; this will build in variety and create opportunities for intensive study (Stake 2006: 24).2\n2 Though Yin (2014: 40-444) is dismissive of such use of the term “sample” since he sees case study research as only generalizable to similar situations, and not to a general population from which a sample is typically said to be drawn. I agree with this focus on concrete situations over Stake’s prioritization of theory-building as an end unto itself.\nStake’s (2010: 122) prioritizes doing research to understand something or to improve something, and I generally agree with his rationalization; research helps reframe problems and establish different decision options.\n\n\nYin’s Approach\nAccording to Yin (2014: 16), “a case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the”case”) in depth and within its real-world context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident.”\nHe goes on to document some features of a case study: “A case study inquiry copes with the technically distinctive situation in which there will be many more variables of interest than data points, and as one result relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion, and as another result benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis.” (Yin 2014: 17)\nYin (2014) is more oriented toward what he refers to as a realist perspective, which he pits against relativist and interpretivist perspectives (used interchangably, it seems), and which I might refer to as constructivist. He characterizes relativist perspectives as “acknowledging multiple realities having multiple meanings, with findings that are observer dependent”. His prioriting of a realist approach corresponds with the analysis by Yazan (2015), who compared Yin with Stake and Merriam. According to Yazan (2015: 137), Yin evades making statements about his epistemic commitments, and is characterized as post-positivist.\nYin (2014) is very concerned with research design in case study research He posits that, in a colloquial sense, “a research design is a logical plan for getting from here to there, where here may be defined as the initial set of questions to be answered, and there is some set of conclusions (answers) about these questions.” (Yin 2014: 28)\nYin distinguishes between a research design and a work plan. A research design deals with a logical problem, whereas a work plan deals with a logistical problem. Seems reminiscient of Brian Cantwell Smith’s distinction between skeletons and outlines.\nYin lists five components of a research design:\n\nA case study’s questions;\nits propositions, if any;\nits unit(s) of analysis;\nthe logic linking the data to the propositions; and\nthe criteria for interpreting the findings.\n\nInterestingly, I have been instinctively following these steps, and am currently hovering somewhere between components 3 and 4, while dipping back to 2 once in a while too.\nThe problem of defining the unit of analysis is salient to me right now. According to Yin (2014: 32), the unit of analysis may change as the project progresses, depending on initial misconceptions (he uses the example of a unit of analysis changing from neighbourhoods to small groups, as contextualized by the socio-geographical entity of the neighbourhood, which is laden with issues of class, race, etc). In my own situation, the unit of analysis may hover between the harmonization initiative, the people, activities or infrastructures that make it work.\nIn the section on criteria for interpreting the findings, Yin emphasizes the role of rival theories, which is akin to a concern with falsifiability as a means of validating truth claims, and which betrays his positivist leanings. This may be compared with Stake’s emphasis on triangulation, which is more concerned with internal cohesiveness. Similarly, Yin cites Corbin and Strauss regarding the role of theory or theoretical propositions in research design, which similarly reveals a concern with rigorous upfront planning and strict adherence to research design as a key aspect of deriving valid findings.\nRegarding generalizability, Yin (2014: 40-41) states that “Rather than thinking about your case as a sample, you should think of it as the opportunity to shed empirical light about some theoretical concepts or principles, not unlike the motive of a laboratory investigator in conceiving of and then conducting a new experiment.” He goes on to state that case studies tend to strive for analytic generalizations that go beyond the specific case that has been studied, and which apply to other concrete situations rather than just abstract theory building.\n\n\nLogistics of case study design\n\nPreparing to select case study data\nYin (2014: 72-73) identifies five desired attributes for collecting case studt data:\n\nAsk good questions — and interpret answers fairly.\n\n\n“As you collect case study evidence, you must quickly review the evidence and continually ask yourself why events or perceptions appear as they do.” (73)\nA good indicator of having asked good questions is mental and emotional exhaustion at the end of each fieldwork day, due to the depletion of “analytic energy” associated with being attention on your toes. (73-74)\n\n\nBe a good “listener” not trapped by existing ideologies or preconceptions.\n\n\nSensing through multiple modalities, not just spoken words.\nAlso subtext, as elicited through choices of terms used, mood and affective components. (74)\n\n\nStay adaptive, so that newly encountered situations can be seen as opportunities, not threats.\n\n\nRemember the original purpose but willing to adapt to unanticipated circumnstances. (74)\nEmphasize balancing adaptability with rigour, but not with rigidity. (75)\n\n\nHave a firm grasp of what is being studied, even when in an exploratory mode.\n\n\nNeed to do more than merely record data, but interpret information as they are being collected and to know immedately whether there are contradictions or complementary statements to follow-up on. (75-76)\n\n\nAvoid biases of being sensitive to contrary evidence, also knowing how to conduct research ethically.\n\n\nMaintain strong professional competence, including keeping up with related research, ensuring accuracy, striving for credibility, and knowledging and mitigating against bias.\n\nYin advocates for adoption of case study protocols. He provides an example of a table of contents for case study protocols, which generally comprise four sections:\n\nOverview of the case study\nData collection procedures\nData collection questions\nGuide for the case study report\n\n\n\nTriangulation\nTriangulation is a process of gaining assurance. Also sometimes called crystallization.\n“Each important finding needs to have at least three (often more) confirmations and assurances that key meanings are not being overlooked.” (Stake 2006: 33) Triangulation is a process of repetitous data gathering and critical review of what is being said. (Stake 2006: 34)\nWhat needs triangulation? (Stake 2006: 35-36)\n\nIf the description is trivial or beyond question, there is no need to triangulate.\nIf the description is relevant and debatable, there is much need to triangulate.\nIf the data are critical to a main assertion, there is much need to triangulate.\nIf the data are evidence for a controversial finding, there is much need to triangulate.\nIf a statement is clearly a speaker’s interpretation, there is little need to triangulate the quotation but not its content.\n\nStake (2006: 37) cites Denzin (1989) who highlighted several kinds of triangulation, leading to a few advisories:\n\nFind ways to use multiple rather than single observers of the same thing.\nUse second and third perspectives, i.e. the views of teachers, student and parents.\nUse more than one research method on the same thing, i.e. document review and interview.\nCheck carefully to decide how much the total description warrants generalization.\n\nDo your conclusions generalize across other times or places?\nDo your conclusions about the aggregate generalize to individuals?\nDo findings of the interaction among individuals in one group pertain to other groups?\nDo findings of the aggregate of these people generalized to a population?\n\n\n\n\nCross-Case Analysis Procedure\nStake (2006: Chapter 3) lays out a procedure for deriving synthetic findings from data collected across cases. He frames this in terms of a dialectic between cases and quintains. He identifies three tracks (Stake 2006: 46):\n\nTrack 1: Maintains the case findings and the situationality.\nTrack 2: Merges similar findings, maintaining a little of the situationality.\nTrack 3: The most quanitative track, shifts the focus from findings to factors.\n\nAccording to Stake, case reports should be created independently and then brought together by a single individual when working in a collaborative project. In keeping with the case-quintain dialectic, this integration must involve strategically putting the cases aside and bringing them back in to identify convergences and divergences, similarities and differences, normalitities and discrepancies among them.\nThere is some detailed discussion about different kinds of statements, i.e. themes, findings, factors and assertions, but I find this a bit too much detail for me to get at at this point in mymethodological planning. In general though, Stake documents a process whereby an analyst navigates back and forth between the general and the situational, presenting tentativr statements that are shored up, modified or discarded through testing compatability of the evidence across cases.\n\n\nSingle cases\nStake (2000) is concerned with identifying what can be learned from a single case. He (2000: 437) identifies three kinds of cases:\n\nIntrinsic case studies as being driven by a desire to understand the particular case.\nInstrumental case studies are examined “mainly to provide insight into an issue or to redraw a generalization.”\nCollective case studies “investigate a phenomenon, population or general condition”.\n\nStake (2000) frames case research around a tension between the particular and the general, which echoes the case-quintain dilemma he described in (Stake 2006: 4-6).\n\n\nSome scattered practical guidance\nStake (2006: 18-22) provides a detailed and realistic overview of common challenges involved in collaborative qualitative research. This could be handy in future work when planning a multicase project involving multiple researchers.\nStake (2006: 29-33) provides guidance on how to plan and conduct interviews in multicase research, including a series of helpful prompts and questions to ask yourself while designing the interview. One thing that stands out is his recommendation that an interview should be more about the interviewee than about the case. It’s necessary to find out about the interviewee to understand their interpretations, but what they reveal about the quintain is more important.\nOn page 34, Stake (2006) also provides some practical tips for documenting and storing data, after Huberman and Miles (1994).\nStake (2006: Chapter 4) includes a chapter on procedures for reporting the findings, and I may return to this later on once I need to initiative this phase of work. It addresses concerns about how to articulate comparisons, concerns about generalization, and how to handle advocacy based on findings.\nSee Stake (2006) Chapter 5 for a step-by-step overview of a multicase study analysis. The rest of the volume after that includes three very detailed examples from his own work.\n\n\n\n\nGrounded theory\nThese notes are largely drawn from Charmaz (2000), which I understand to be a fairly balanced and comprehensive overview of the Glaser / Strauss and Corbin debate, and of the situation of specific methods and techniques in relation to these different stances. I also value Charmaz’s position as someone who subscribes to her constructivist approach.\nAccording to Charmaz(2000: 509):\n\nEssentially, grounded theory methods consist of systematic inductive guidelines for collecting and analyzing data to build middle-range theoretical frameworks that explain the collected data.\n\nCharmaz(2000: 511) goes on to situate grounded theory in relation to what was the norm prior to its invention:\n\nGlaser and Strauss’s (1967) work was revolutionary because it challenged (a) arbitrary divisions between theory and research, (b) views of qualitative research as primarily a precursor to more “rigorous” quantitative methods, (c) claims that the quest for rigor made qualitative research illegitimate, (d) beliefs that qualitative methods are impressionistic and unsystematic, (e) separation of data collection and analysis, and (f) assumptions that qualitative research could produce only descriptive case studies rather than theory development (Charmaz 1995).\n\nPrior to Glaser and Strauss (1967), qualitative analysis was taught rather informally — they led the way in providing written guidelines for systematic qualitative data analysis with explicit procedures for data analysis (Charmaz 2000: 512)\nGlaser brought his very positivist assumptions from his work at Columbia, and Strauss’ work in Chicago with Herbert Blumer and Robert Park infused a pragmatic philosophical approach to the study of process, action and meaning that reflects symbolic interactionism.\n\nGlaser\nGlaser’s position comes close to traditional positivism, with assumptions of an objective, external reality and a neutral observer who discovers data. and a reductionist form of inquiry of manageable research problems. According to Charmaz (2000: 511), regarding Glaser’s approach:\n\nTheoretical categories must be developed from analysis of the collected data and must fit them; these categories must explain the data they subsume. This grounded theorists cannot shop their disciplinary stores for preconceived concepts and dress their data in them. Any existing concept must earn its way into the analysis. … The relevance of a grounded theory derives from its offering analytic explanations of actual problems and basic processes in the research setting. A grounded theory is durable because researchers can modify their emerging or established analyses as conditions change or further data are collected.\n\n\n\nCorbin and Strauss\nStrauss and Corbin assume an objective reality, aim toward unbiased data collection, propose a series of technical procedures, and espouses verification. However, they are postpositivism because they propose giving voice to their respondents,3 representing them as accurately as possible, discovering and reckoning with how their respodents’ views on reality differ from their own, and reflecting on the research process as one way of knowing.\n3 Charmaz uses the term “giving voice” in this specific context. I’m not sure if this is meant to represent Strauss and Corbin’s attitude, and whether this is an accurate representation on their views, but in my mind this should be framed as elevating, amplifying or re-articulating respondents’ voices (and this is a tenet of constructivist grounded theory in general, which derives from Charmaz). My take diverges from the position that we “give voice” to respondents in that it acknowledges (1) that the voices are already there, (2) that respondents are in fact giving us their voices, and (3) that the researcher plays an active editorial role, transforming the respondents’ elicitations into a format that is more amenable to analysis.Corbin and Strauss (1990) “gained readers but lost the sense of emergence and open-ended character of Strauss’s earlier volume and much of his empirical work. The improved and more accessible second edition of Basics (Strauss and Corbin 1998) reads as less prescriptive and aims to lead readers to a new way of thinking about their research and about the world.” (Charmaz 2000: 512)\nStrauss apparently became more insistent that grounded theory should be more verificational in nature in personal communications.\nGlaser (1992) responded to Strauss and Corbin (1990), repudiating what he perceived as forcing preconceived questions and frameworks on the data. Glaser considered it better to allow theory to “emerge” from the data, i.e. to let the data speak for themselves.\nCharmaz identifies these two approaches as having a lot in common: hey both advocate for mitigating factors that would hinder objectivity and minimize intrusion of the researcher’s subjectivity, and they are both embedded in positivist attitudes, with a researcher sitting outside the observed reality; Glaser exemplifies these through discovering and coding data, and using systematic comparative methods, whereas Strauss and Corbin maintain a similar distance through their analytical questions, hypotheses and methodological applications. They both engage in “silent authorship” and usually write about their data as distant experts (Charmaz and Mitchell 1996).\n\n\nConstuctivist Grounded Theory\n\nConstructivist grounded celebrates firsthand knowledge of empirical worlds, takes a middle ground between postmodernsm and positivism, and offers accessible methods for taking qualitative research into the 21st century. (510)\n\n\nThe power of grounded theory lies in its tools for understanding empirical worlds. We can reclaim these tools from their positivist underpinnings to form a revised, more open-ended practice of grounded theory that stresses its emergent, constructivist elements. We can use grounded theory methods as flexible, heuristic strategies rather than as formulaic procedures. (510)\n\nThree aspects to Charmaz’s argument (510):4\n4 Very much in line with the pragmatist turn of the late ’90s and early ’00s, as also documented by Lucas (2019: 54-57) in the context of archaeological theory, vis-a-vis positivism, postmodernism, and settling on a middle ground between them.\nGrounded theory strategies need not be rigid or prescriptive;\na focus on meaning while using grounded theory furthers, rather than limits, interpretive understanding; and\nwe can adopt grounded theory strategies without embracing the positivist leanings of earlier proponents of grounded theory.\n\nRepudiation of the notion that data speak for themselves, that data do not lie. Recognition that data are constructs of the rsearch process, are framed by the questions we ask informants and the methodological tools of our collection procedures.\nCharmaz (2000: 515) advocates for what seems to be a dialogical approach to coding, between researcher and the data:\n\nWe should interact with our data and pose questions to them while coding. Coding helps us to gain a new perspective on our material and to focus further data collection, and may lead us in unforeseen directions. Unline quantitative research that requires data to fit into preconceived standardized codes, the researcher’s interpretations of data shape his or her emergent codes in grounded theory.\n\nDistinguishes articulates open/initial coding as proceeding line by line to get a general sense of what the data contains. It is meant to keep the researcher close to the data, to remain attuned to the subjects’ views of their realities.\n\nLine-by-line coding sharpens our use of sensitizing concepts — that is, those background ideas that inform the overall research problem. Sensitizing concepts offer eays of seeing, organizing, and understanding experience; they are embedded in our disciplinary emphases and perspectival proclivities. Although sensitizing conceots may deepen perception, they provide starting points for building analysis, not ending points for evading it. We may use sensitizing concepts only as points of departure from which to study the data.\n\nMuch of the rest of the Charmaz (2000) paper is an overview of coding and memoing methods, as well as theoretical sampling. The emphasis is on situating these techniques in the Glaser / Strauss and Corbin debate, and it will be better to refer to Charmaz (2014) for in-depth notes on these techniques.\nCharmaz (2000: 521-522) provides an apt account of a significant critique of grounded theory, and poses her constructivist approach as a potential means of resolving it. Specifically, she refers to the notion that grounded theory (as traditionally conceived by both Glaser and Strauss and Corbin) “fractures” the data, making them easier to digest in an analytical sense, but also making it more difficult to engage with in a holistic manner. This is precisely the point of the original approach, to present qualitative data as data — as conceived and valued by quantitative researchers, i.e. as discrete, corpuscular, disembodied, re-arrangable and distant entities. The text of these two large paragraphs is copied here:\n\nConrad (1990) and Riessman (1990) suggest that “fracturing the data” in grounded theory research might limit understanding because grounded theorists aim for analysis rather than the portrayal of subjects’ experience in its fullness. From a grounded theory perspective, fracturing the data means creating codes and categories as the researcher defines themes within the data. Glaser and Strauss (1967) propose this strategy for several reasons: (a) to help the researcher avoid remaining immersed in anecdotes and stories, and subsequently unconsciously adopting subjects’ perspectives; (b) to prevent the researcher’s becoming immobilized and overwhelmed by voluminous data; and (c) to create a way for the researcher to organize and interpret data. However, criticisms of fracturing the data imply that grounded theory methods lead to separating the experience from the experiencing subject, the meaning from the story, and the viewer from the viewed. In short, the criticisms assume that the grounded theory method (a) limits entry into subjects’ worlds, and thus reduces understanding of their experience; (b) curtails representation of both the social world and subjective experience; (c) relies upon the viewer’s authority as expert observer; and (d) posits a set of objectivist procedures on which the analysis rests.\nResearchers can use grounded theory methods to further their knowledge of subjective experience and to expand its representation while neither remaining external from it nor accepting objectivist assumptions and procedures. A constructivist grounded theory assumes that people create and maintain meaningful worlds through dialectical processes of conferring meaning on their realities and acting within them (Bury 1986; Mishler 1981). Thus social reality does not exist independent of human action. Certainly, my approach contrasts with a number of grounded theory studies, methodological statements, and research texts (see, e.g., Chenitz and Swanson 1986; Glaser 1992; Martin and Turner 1986; Strauss and Corbin 1990; Turner 1981). By adopting a constructivist grounded theory approach, the researcher can move grounded theory methods further into the realm of interpretive social science consistent with a Blumerian (1969) emphasis on meaning, without assuming the existence of a unidimensional external reality. A constructivist grounded theory recognizes the interactive nature of both data collection and analysis, resolves recent criticisms of the method, and reconciles positivist assumptions and postmodernist critiques. Moreover, a constructivist grounded theory fosters the development of qualitative traditions through the study of experience from the standpoint of those who live it.\n\nCharmaz’s (2000: 523) proposal for a re-visioned grounded theory poses research as a materializing process:\n\nA re-visioned grounded theory must take epistemological questions into account. Grounded theory can provide a path for researchers who want to continue to develop qualitative traditions without adopting the positivistic trappings of objectivism and universality. Hence the further development of a constructivist grounded theory can bridge past positivism and a revised future form of interpretive inquiry. A revised grounded theory preserves realism through gritty, empirical inquiry and sheds positivistic proclivities by becoming increasingly interpretive.\n\nCharmaz (2000: 523) addresses realism and truth in constructivist grounded theory, and explicitly relates it to Blumerian situated interactionism:\n\nA constructivist grounded theory distinguishes between the real and the true. The constructivist approach does not seek truth — single, universal, and lasting. Still, it remains realist because it addresses human realities and assumes the existence of real worlds. However, neither human realities nor real worlds are unidimensional. We act within and upon our realities and worlds and thus develop dialectical relations among what we do, think, and feel. The constructivist approach assumes that what we take as real, as objective knowledge and truth, is based upon our perspective (Schwandt 1994). The pragmatist underpinnings in symbolic interactionism emerge here. Thomas and Thomas (1928: 572) proclaim, “If human beings define their situations as real, they are real in their consequences”. Following their theorem, we must try to find what research participants define as real and where their definitions of reality take them. The constructivist approach also fosters our self-consciousness about what we attribute to our subjects and how, when, and why researchers portray these definitions as real. Thus the research products do not constitute the reality of the respondents’ reality. Rather, each is a rendering, one interpretation among multiple interpretations, of a shared or individual reality. That interpretation is objectivist only to the extent that it seeks to construct analyses that show how respondents and the social scientists who study them construct those realities — without viewing those realities as unidimensional, universal, and immutable. Researchers’ attention to detail in the constructivist approach sensitizes them to multiple realities and the multiple viewpoints within them; it does not represent a quest to capture a single reality.\nThus we can recast the obdurate character of social life that Blumer (1969) talks about. In doing so, we change our conception of it from a real world to be discovered, tracked, and categorized to a world made real in the minds and through the words and actions of its members. Thus the grounded theorist constructs an image of a reality, not the reality — that is, objective, true, and external.\n\nOn the other hand, Charmaz (2000: 524) frames objectivist grounded theory as believing in some kind of truth:\n\nObjectivist grounded theory accepts the positivistic assumption of an external world that can be described, analyzed, explained, and predicted: truth, but with a small t. That is, objectivist grounded theory is modifiable as conditions change. It assumes that different observers will discover this world and describe it in similar ways That’s correct — to the extent that subjects have comparable experiences (e.g., people with different chronic illnesses may experience uncertainty, intrusive regimens, medical dominance) and viewers bring similar que-tions, perspectives, methods, and, subsequently, concepts to analyze those experiences. Objectivist grounded theorists often share assumptions with their research participants — particularly the professional participants. Perhaps more likely, they assume that respondents share their meanings. For example, Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) discussion of independence and dependence assumes that these terms hold the same meanings for patients as for researchers.\n\nCharmaz (2000: 525) further embeds construvist grounded theory as a way to fulfill Blumer’s symbolic interactionism:\n\nWhat helps researchers develop a constructivist grounded theory? How might they shape the data collection and analysis phases? Gaining depth and understanding in their work means that they can fulfill Blumer’s (1969) call for “intimate familiarity” with respondents and their worlds (see also Lofland and Lofland 1984, 1995). In short, constructing constructivism means seeking meanings — both respondents’ meanings and researchers’ meanings.\n\nCharmaz (2000: 524) on the concretization of procedures from what were orginally meant to be guidelines:\n\nGuidelines such as those offered by Strauss and Corbin (1990) structure objectivist grounded theorists’ work. These guidelines are didactic and prescriptive rather than emergent and interactive. Sanders (1995: 92) refers to grounded theory procedures as “more rigorous than thou instructions about how information should be pressed into a mold”. Strauss and Corbin categorize steps in the process with scientific terms such as axial coding and conditional matrix (Strauss 1987; Strauss and Corbin 1990, 1994). As grounded theory methods become more articulated, categorized, and elaborated, they seem to take on a life of their own. Guidelines turn into procedures and are reified into immutable rules, unlike Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) original flexible strategies. By taking grounded theory methods as prescriptive scientific rules, proponents further the positivist cast to obiectivist grounded theory.\n\n\nOn the modes of reasoning behind grounded theory\nKelle (2005) is an overview of the Glaser / Strauss and Corbin split. References to Kelle (2005) have no page numbers since it is published in an online-only journal and does not specify paragraph numbers.\nHighlights a primary impetus behind Glaser and Strauss (1967), which used political analogies to distinguish between “theoretical capitalists” and “proletariat testers”, and unify the field of sociology by de-centering emphasis on theories developed by “great men”.\nA common thread in this paper is sensitivity to the practical challenges of actually doing grounded theory according to Glaser’s approach:\n\nThe infeasibility of an inductivist research strategy which demands an empty head (instead of an “open mind”) cannot only be shown by epistemological arguments, it can also be seen in research practice. Especially novices in qualitative research with the strong desire to adhere to what they see as a basic principle and hallmark of Grounded Theory — the “emergence” of categories from the data — often experience a certain difficulty: in open coding the search for adequate coding categories can become extremely tedious and a subject of sometimes numerous and endless team sessions, especially if one hesitates to explicitly introduce theoretical knowledge. The declared purpose to let codes emerge from the data then leads to an enduring proliferation of the number of coding categories which makes the whole process insurmountable.\n\nKelle (2005) basically takes down the original Glaser and Strauss (1967) and subsequent reflection on theoretecal sensitivity (Glaser 1978). He highlights fundamental contraditions and oversights with regards to the role of theory in grounded theory, specifically with regards to the notion that such research can be accomplished with inductive purity:\n\nConsequently, in the most early version of Grounded Theory the advice to employ theoretical sensitivity to identify theoretical relevant phenomena coexists with the idea that theoretical concepts “emerge” from the data if researchers approach the empirical field with no preconceived theories or hypotheses. Both ideas which have conflicting implications are not integrated with each other in the Discovery book. Furthermore, the concept of theoretical sensitivity is not converted into clear cut methodological rules: it remains unclear how a theoretically sensitive researcher can use previous theoretical knowledge to avoid drowning in the data. If one takes into account the frequent warnings not to force theoretical concepts on the data one gets the impression that a grounded theorist is advised to introduce suitable theoretical concepts ad hoc drawing on implicit theoretical knowledge but should abstain from approaching the empirical data with ex ante formulated hypotheses.\n\nKelle (2005) recognizes that Glaser identified a series of “theoretical families” to help assist with the practical experience of coding. I find it somewhat interesting that many of the terms in these first families are very reminiscient of so-called “natural language”, as used in the wave of cybernets that was contemporary with Glaser (1978) and which largely dealt with “expert systems”.\n\nIn the book “Theoretical Sensitivity” (1978) GLASER presents an extended list of terms which can be used for the purpose of theoretical coding loosely structured in the form of so called theoretical “coding families”. Thereby various theoretical concepts stemming from different (sociological, philosophical or everyday) contexts are lumped together, as for example:\n\nterms, which relate to the degree of an attribute or property (“degree family”), like “limit”, “range”, “extent”, “amount” etc.,\nterms, which refer to the relation between a whole and its elements (“dimension family”), like “element”, “part”, “facet”, “slice”, “sector”, “aspect”, “segment” etc.,\nterms, which refer to cultural phenomena (“cultural family”) like “social norms”, “social values”, “social beliefs” etc.\n\n\nThis is substantiated by other observations by Kelle (2005) that ad hoc coding actually follows implicit theoretical knowledge:\n\nOne of the most crucial differences between GLASER’s and STRAUSS’ approaches of Grounded Theory lies in the fact that STRAUSS and CORBIN propose the utilization of a specified theoretical framework based on a certain understanding of human action, whereas GLASER emphasises that coding as a process of combining “the analyst’s scholarly knowledge and his research knowledge of the substantive field” (1978, p.70) has to be realised ad hoc, which means that it has often to be conducted on the basis of a more or less implicit theoretical background knowledge.\n\nand that the Glaserian approach is better suited for more experienced, rather than novice sociologists, who will have internalized the theory that they then apply in their coding.\nKelle then goes on to address how grounded theory can or can not be applied in alignment with inductivist or hypothetic-deductivist reasoning, and raises abductive reasoning an an alternative means of arriving at legitimate and verifiable conclusions. There is too much detail in the paper to copy here.\nBut here is another nice conclusive gem from the end:\n\nWhereas STRAUSS and CORBIN pay a lot of attention to the question how grounded categories and propositions can be further validated, GLASER’s concept shows at least a gleam of epistemological fundamentalism (or “certism”, LAKATOS 1978) especially in his defence of the inductivism of early Grounded Theory. “Grounded theory looks for what is, not what might be, and therefore needs no test” (GLASER 1992, p.67). Such sentences carry the outmoded idea that empirical research can lead to final certainties and truths and that by using an inductive method the researcher may gain the ability to conceive “facts as they are” making any attempt of further corroboration futile.\n\n\n\nRebuttals by Glaser\nGlaser (2002) constitutes a rebuttal to Charmaz (2000). As Bryant (2003) points out in his response to Glaser (2002), it is very angry, polemical and irrational. I don’t want to go too in depth with the fundamental problems with Glaser’s response (see Bryant’s paper for the details), but the gist is that Glaser never really got the message about data being inherently constructed by researchers decisions, actions and circumstances. Glaser seems to continue believing in the inherent neutrality of data as a matter of faith.\nThis being said, Glaser (2002) did highlight the large emphasis on descriptive rather than explanatory potential in Charmaz’s approach. This aligns with my own apprehensions when I try to address the relevance of my work. I tend to use the term “articulate” as a way to frame my work as descriptive, but in a way that lends value, and this very fuzzy distinction between the power of identying the shapes and relationships among things and explaining their causes and effects in a generalizable way (i.e., theories, or explanations), still somehow troubles me. I wonder if Glaser is drawing a false distinction here, and through that, a false prioritization of explanation over description as a desired outcome. This would put my mind at ease, as would dismissing Glaser’s dismissal of people who simply don’t know how to do the “real” grounded theory (which, in his mind, include all feminist and critical researchers).\n\n\nOn the utility of grounded theory\nI completely agree with this statement from Clarke (2003: 555):\n\nTo address the needs and desires for empirical understandings of the complex and heterogeneous worlds emerging through new world orderings, new methods are requisite (Haraway 1999). I believe some such methods should be epistemologically/ ontologically based in the pragmatist soil that has historically nurtured symbolic interactionism and grounded theory. Through Mead, an interactionist grounded theory has always had the capacity to be distinctly perspectival in ways fully com patible with what are now understood as situated knowledges. This fundamental and always already postmodern edge of a grounded theory founded in symbolic interactionism makes it worth renovating.\n\nThis is super interesting, and really contextualizes how Strauss imagined grounded theory to be useful for him:\n\nSome years ago, Katovich and Reese (1993:400–405) interestingly argued that Strauss’s negotiated order and related work recuperatively pulled the social around the postmodern turn through its methodological [grounded theoretical] recognition of the partial, tenuous, shifting, and unstable nature of the empirical world and its constructedness. I strongly agree and would argue that Strauss also furthered this “postmodernization of the social” through his conceptualizations of social worlds and arenas as modes of understanding the deeply situated yet always also fluid orga nizational elements of negotiations. He foreshadowed what later came to be known as postmodern assumptions: the instability of situations; characteristic changing, porous boundaries of both social worlds and arenas; social worlds seen as mutually constitutive/coproduced through negotiations taking place in arenas; negotiations as central social processes hailing that “things can always be otherwise”; and so on. Significantly, negotiations constitute discourses that also signal micropolitics of power as well as “the usual” meso/macrostructural elements—power in its more fluid forms (e.g., Foucault 1979, 1980). Through integrating the social worlds/arenas/ negotiations framework with grounded theory as a new conceptual infrastructure, I hope to sustain and extend the methodological contribution of grounded theory to understanding and elaborating what has been meant by “the social” in social life — before, during, and after the postmodern turn.\n\nIt also echoes Charmaz’s vision of grounded theory as a powerful too, and Bryant’s (2003) call to “look at what Glaser and Strauss actually did, rather than what they claimed — and continued to claim — they were doing” to uncover “the basis for a powerful research approach”. Bryant (2003) further cites Baszanger and Dodier (1997), who characterize grounded theory as a method “consisting of accumulating a series of individual cases, of analyzing them as a combination between different logics of action that coexist not only in the field under consideration, but even within these individuals or during their encounters”. Bryant (2003) summarizes this by stating that “[t]he aim of such methods is generalization rather than totalization, with the objective of producing”a combinative inventory of possible situations”.\n\n\n\n\nTheoretical sampling\nSee Charmaz (2000): 519-520.\nFrom Clarke (2003: 557):\n\nUnique to this approach has been, first, its requiring that analysis begin as soon as there are data. Coding begins immediately, and theorizing based on that coding does as well, however provisionally (Glaser 1978). Second, “sampling” is driven not necessarily (or not only) by attempts to be “representative” of some social body or population (or its heterogeneities) but especially and explicitly by theoretical con cerns that have emerged in the provisional analysis. Such “theoretical sampling” focuses on finding new data sources (persons or things) that can best explicitly ad dress specific theoretically interesting facets of the emergent analysis. Theoretical sampling has been integral to grounded theory from the outset, remains a fundamen tal strength of this analytic approach, and is crucial for the new situational analyses."
   },
   {
     "objectID": "notes/methodology-notes.html#data-collection",
     "href": "notes/methodology-notes.html#data-collection",
     "title": "Methodology notes",
     "section": "Data Collection",
-    "text": "Data Collection\n\nInterviews\nSee (Yin 2014: 110-113) See Becker (1998)\nFrom Charmaz (2000: 525):\n\nA constructivist approach necessitates a relationship with respondents in which they can cast their stories in their terms. It means listening to their stories with openness to feeling and experience. … Furthermore, one-shot interviewing lends itself to a partial, sanitized view of experience, cleaned up for public discourse. The very structure of an interview may preclude private thoughts and feelings from emerging. Such a structure reinforces whatever proclivities a respondent has to tell only the public version of the story. Researchers’ sustained involvement with research participants lessens these problems.\n\nFontana and Frey (2000) spend some time writing about the emergence of an “interview society”, whereby interviews are commonly used to seek various forms of biographical information. They cite (holstein1998?), who noted that “the interview has become a means of contemporary storytelling, where persons divulge life accounts in response to interview inquiries”. They then go over a brief history of interviewing in the context of sociological research, which largely tracks the values underlying positivist and postmodernist transitions as you might expect.\n\nStructured interviewing\nFrom Fontana and Frey (2000: 649-651):\nInterviewers ask respondents a series of preestablished questions with a limited set of response categories. The interview records responses according to a preestablished coding scheme.\nInstructions to interviewers often follow these guidelines:\n\nNever get involved in long explanations of the study; use the standard explanation provided by the supervisor.\nNever deviate from the study introduction, sequence of questions, or question wording.\nNever let another person interrupt the interview; do not let another person answer for the respondent or offer his or her opinions on the question.\nNever suggest an answer or agree or disagree with an answer. Do not give the respondent any idea of your personal views on the topic of the question or the survey.\nNever interpret the meaning of a question; just repeat the question and give instructions or clarifications that are provided in training or by the supervisors.\nNever improvise, such as by assing answer categories or making wording changes.\n\nThe interviewer must establish a “balanced rapport”, being casual and friendly while also directive and impersonal. Interviewers must also perfect a style of “interested listening” that rewards respondents’ participation but does not evaluate their responses.\nFrom Fontana and Frey (2000: 651):\n\nThis kind of interview often elicits rational responses, but it overlooks or inadequately assesses the emotional dimension.\n\n\n\nGroup interviews\nFrom Fontana and Frey (2000: 651-652):\nCan be used to test a methodological technique, try out a definition of a research problem or to identify key informants. Pre-testing a questionnaire or survey design.\nCan be used to aid respondents’ recall of specific events or to stimulate embellished descriptions of events, or experiences shared by members of a group.\nIn formal group interviews, participants share views through the coordinator.\nLess formal group interviews are meant to establish the widest range of meaning and interpretation on a topic, and the objective is “to tap intersubjective meaning with depth and diversity”.\n\n\nUnstructured interviewing\nFrom Fontana and Frey (2000: 652-657):\nThe essence of an unstructured interview is establishing a human-to-human relation with the respondent and a desire to understand rather than to explain.\n(fontana?) then goes on with some practical guidance on how to engage in unstructured interviews, largely concerned with how to access a community and relate with respondents.\n\n\nTranscribing\nThis section describes how I transcibe interviews and accounts for the decisions to encode certain things and not others. It goes on to explains the procedures for transcribing spoken dialog into textual formats, including the notation applied to encode idiosyncratic elements of conversational speech.\nCheck out Silverman (2000), who writes about the nuanced challenges of working with and between verbal and textual media, and what this means for transcription.\n\nTranscript notation\nDerived from the transcription protocol applied for the E-CURATORS project.\n\n\nCleaning audio\nTo clean the audio:\n\nI select a clip that is representative of a single source of background noise, and then filter that wavelength throughout the entire audio file.\nAfter selecting the clip, go to Effect &gt;&gt; Noise Reduction and select Get Noise Profile, then press OK.\nClose the noise reduction menu, select the entire range of audio using the keyboard shortcut Command + A.\nThen go back to the noise reduction window (Effect &gt;&gt; Noise Reduction) to apply the filter based on the noise profile identified for the noisy clip.\nExport the modified audio file to the working directory (File &gt;&gt; Export &gt;&gt; Export as .WAV).\nUse ffmpeg to replace the dirty audio track with the clean one:\n\n  ffmpeg -i dirty.mp4 -i clean.wav -c:v copy -map 0:v:0 -map 1:a:0 clean.mp4\n\n\n\n\nObservations\nSee Angrosino and Mays de Pérez (2000)\n\n\nField notes\nSee (Yin 2014: 124-125)\n\n\nRecording video\n\n\nFocus groups\nFrom Kitzinger (1994); Wilkinson (1998); Parker and Tritter (2006); Morgan and Hoffman (2018).\n\nCrucially, focus groups involve the interaction of group participants with each other as well as with the moderator, and it is the collection of this kind of interactive data which distinguishes the focus group from the one-to-one interview (c.f. Morgan 1988), as well as from procedures which use multiple participants but do not permit interactive discussion (c.f. Stewart and Shamdasani 1990). The ‘hallmark’ of focus groups, then, is the ‘explicit use of group interaction to produce data and insights that would be less accessible without the interaction found in a group’ (Morgan 1997: 2).\n\nWilkinson (1998) identifies three key features of focus group methods:\n\nproviding access to participants’ own language, concepts and concerns;\n\n\n“The relatively free flow of discussion and debate between members of a focus group offers an excellent opportunity for hearing ‘the language and vernacular used by respondents’”\nUseful for gaining insight into participants’ conceptual worlds on their own terms\n“Sometimes, the participants even offer the researcher a ‘translation’ of unfamiliar terms or concepts”\n“Focus group interactions reveal not only shared ways of talking, but also shared experiences, and shared ways of making sense of these experiences. The researcher is offered an insight into the commonly held assumptions, concepts and meanings that constitute and inform participants’ talk about their experiences.”\n\n\nencouraging the production of more fully articulated accounts;\n\n\n“In focus groups people typically disclose personal details, reveal discrediting information, express strong views and opinions. They elaborate their views in response to encouragement, or defend them in the face of challenge from other group members: focus groups which ‘take off’ may even, like those run by Robin Jarrett (1993: 194) have ‘the feel of rap sessions with friends’.”\n“Even when bcus group participants are not acquainted in advance, the interactive nature of the group means that participants ask questions of, disagree with, and challenge each other, thus serving ‘to elicit the elaboration of responses’ (Merton 1987: 555).”\n“Other ethical issues in focus group research stem from group dynamics, insofar as participants can collaborate or collude effectively to intimidate and/or silence a particular member, or to create a silence around a particular topic or issue, for example. In such cases, it falls to the group moderator to decide whether/how to intervene, and it can be difficult to balance such conflicting goals as ensuring the articulation of accounts, supporting individuals, and challenging offensive statements.”\n\n\nand offering an opportunity to observe the process of collective sense-making.\n\n\nFocus groups also offer an opportunity for researchers to see exactly how views are constructed, expressed, defended and (sometimes) modified during the course of conversations with others, 1.e. to observe the process of collective sense-making in action. This is likely to be of particular interest to researchers working within a social constructionist framework, who do not view beliefs, ideas, opinions and understandings as generated by individuals in splendid isolation, but rather as built in interaction with others, in specific social contexts: as Radley and Billig (1996: 223) say, ‘thinking is a socially shared activity’. In a focus group, people are confronted with the need to make collective sense of their individual experiences and beliefs (Morgan and Spanish 1984: 259).\n\nWilkinson (1998) addresses opportunities and challenges in analyzing focus group data using content analysis and ethnographic techniques.\nWith regards to content analysis:\n\nthe main advantages of content analysis are to allow for a relatively systematic treatment of the data and to enable its presentation in summary form. … the researcher has first to decide on the unit of analysis: this could be the whole group, the group dynamics, the individual participants, or the participants’ utterances\n\n\nMorgan (1997) proposes three distinct ways of coding focus group data: noting whether each group discussion contains a given code; noting whether each participant mentions a given code; and noting all mentions of a given code (i.e. across groups or participants). Once the data have been coded in one (or more) of these ways, the question of whether to quantify them is a further issue. Morgan (1993) argues the value of simple ‘descriptive counts’ of codes (stopping short of using inferential statistical tests, whose assumptions are unlikely to be met in focus groups)\n\nAnd with regards to ethnographic analysis:\n\nIts main advantage is to permit a detailed interpretative account of the everyday social processes of communication, talk and action occurring within the focus group. The key issue in ethnographic analysis is how to select the material to present (whether this is framed up as ‘themes’, ‘discourses’, or simply as illustrative quotations), without violating the ‘spirit’ of the group, and without losing sight of the specific context within which the material was generated. … A particular challenge is how to preserve the interactive nature of focus group data: a surprising limitation of published focus group research is the rarity with which group interactions are analysed and reported ( c.f. Carey and Smith 1994, Kitzinger 1994a). Extracts from focus group data are most commonly presented as if they were one-to-one interview data, often with no indication that more than one person is present; still more rarely does interaction per se constitute the analytic focus.\n\n\nKitzinger (1994) elaborates on the interactive nature of focus groups, which she identifies as the methods’ core feature.\n\nFocus groups are group discussions organised to explore a specific set of issues sucb as people’s views and experiences … The group is ‘focused’ in the sense that it involves some kind of collective activity - such as viewing a film, examining a single health education message or simply debating a particular set of questions.\n\n\nEven when group work is explicitly included as part of the research it is often simply employed as a convenient way to illustrate a theory generated by other methods or as a cost-effective technique for interviewing several people at once. Reading some such reports it is hard to believe that there was ever more than one person in the room at the same time. This criticism even applies to many studies which explicitly identify their methodology as ‘focus group discussion’ — in spite of the fact that the distinguishing feature of focus groups is supposed to be the use of interaction as part of the research data.\n\n\nIt would be naive, however, to assume that group data is by definition ‘natural’ in the sense that it would have occurred without the group having been convened for this purpose. It is important to note that although, at times, the focus groups may approximate to participant observation the focus groups are artifidally set up situations. Rather than assuming the group session unproblematically and inevitably reflects ‘everyday interactions’ (although sometimes it will) the group sbould be used to encourage people to engage with one another, verbally formulate their ideas and draw out the cognitive structures which previously have been unarticulated.\n\nOn the active role of the facilitator:\n\nSessions were conducted in a relaxed fashion with minimal intervention from the facilitator - at least at first. This allowed the facilitator to ‘find her feet’ and permitted the research participants to set the priorities. However, the researcber was never passive. Trying to maximise interaction between participants could lead to a more interventionist style: urging debate to continue beyond the stage it might otberwise have ended, challenging people’s taken for granted reality and encouraging them to discuss the inconsistencies both between participants and within their own thinking.\n\nOn the role of the presentation or activity:\n\nSuch exercises not only provided invaluable data from each group but allow for some cross-compadsons between groups. Each discussion session has its own dynamic and direction — when it comes to analysis it is extremely useful to have a common external reference point such as that provided by the card game or the use of vignettes (Kban and Manderson 1992).\n\nOn complementary interactions:\n\nThe excbange between the research participants not only allows the researcher to understand which advertisement they are talking about but to gather data on their shared perception of that image.\n\n\nBrainstorming and loose word association was a frequent feature of the research sessions.\n\n\npeople’s knowledge and attitudes are not entirely encapsulated in reasoned responses to direct questions. Everyday forms of communication such as anecdotes, jokes or loose word association may tell us as much, if not more, about what people ‘know’. In this sense focus groups ‘reach the parts that other methods cannot reach’ - revealing dimensions of understanding that often remain untapped by the more conventional one-to-one interview or questionnaire.\n\n\nIn addition to the advantages discussed above fo exampie, discussing whether they had the ‘right’ to know if another child in the piay group bad had virus asserted that ‘you think of your own first’. It was this phrase, and these sort of sentiments, which seemed to capture their consent and resulted in nods of agreement round the group and assertions that ‘that’s right’ and ‘of course’. Indeed, it was often the strength of the collective reaction that highlighted the specific context within which the research participants experienced AIDS information.\n\nOn argumentative interactions:\n\nthe group process however, is not only about consensus and the articulation of group norms and experiences. Differences between individuals within the group are equally important and, in any case, rarely disappear from view. Regardless of how they are selected, the research participants in any one group are never entirely homogenous. Participants do not just agree with each other — they also misunderstand one another, question one another, try to persuade each other of the justice of their own point of view and sometimes they vehemently disagree.\n\n\nSuch unexpected dissent led them to clarify why they thpught as they did, often identifying aspects of their personal experience which bad altered their opinions or specific occasions which had made them re-think their point of view. Had the data been collected by interviews the researcber might have been faced with ‘arm chair’ theorizing about the causes of such difference but in a focus group these can be explored ‘in situ’ with the help of the research participants.\n\n\nClose attention to the ways in which research participants tell stories to one another aiso prevents the researcber from assuming that she knows ‘the meaning’ of any particular anecdote or account.\n\n\nParker and Tritter (2006) discuss “key issues relating to the complexity and necessity of considering sampling issues within the context of focus group research and the implications this has for the collection and analysis of resultant data.”\nIdentifies some common logistical impetus for focus groups, relating to acquisition of funding:\n\nIncreasing pressure from research funding organizations to adopt multiple-method research strategies and the fact that focus groups generate far more data than a range of other methods in relation to face-to-face contact between researchers and participants, has added to [the method’s popularity].\n\nCalls out the conflation between focus groups and group interviews:\n\nA similarly pervasive trend in and around academic discussion of qualitative research methods is that focus groups are sometimes seen as synonymous with group interviews and it is this issue which constitutes our second point of contention. … In keeping with the views of a number of other writers in this field, we are of the opinion that there is a fundamental difference between these two research techniques and that the critical point of distinction surrounds the role of the researcher and her/ his relationship to the researched (Smithson, 2000). In group interviews the researcher adopts an ‘investigative’ role: asking questions, controlling the dynamics of group discussion, often engaging in dialogue with specific participants. This is premised on the mechanics of one-to-one, qualitative, in-depth interviews being replicated on a broader (collective) scale. A relatively straightforward scenario ensues: the researcher asks questions, the respondents relay their ‘answers’ back to the researcher. In focus groups the dynamics are different. Here, the researcher plays the role of ‘facilitator’ or ‘moderator’; that is, facilitator/moderator of group discussion between participants, not between her/himself and the participants. Hence, where focus groups are concerned, the researcher takes a peripheral, rather than a centre-stage role for the simple reason that it is the inter-relational dynamics of the participants that are important, not the relationship between researcher and researched (see Kitzinger, 1994a; Johnson, 1996).\n\n\nPart of the problem of achieving this kind of interactional synergy in data collection is that, despite their collective interests, participants may not always be keen to engage with each other, or alternatively, may know each other so well that interaction is based on patterns of social relations that have little to do with the research intent of the focus group. The need to consider the impact on interaction of the constitution of the focus group requires that close attention be paid to methods (and outcomes) of recruit ment. … issues of sampling and selection are likely to prove crucial in relation to the form and quality of interaction in a focus group and therefore the kinds of data one gathers and the extent to which participants share their opinions, attitudes and life experiences.\n\nA large part of what follows is an extremely honest account of the challenges involved in recruiting participants to sit for focus groups. The pressure on students to recruit their friends impacted their views on what views were represented and not represented. Moreover, they draw attention to the role of timing and convenience in recruitment strategy, and representativeness of expressed viewpoints.\nI found it hard to take notes on this since it comes off as a continuous stream of conciousness. However it should still be read from top to bottom to get a sense of practical challenges that are not commonly addressed, save for among veterans and in private circles.\n\nMorgan and Hoffman (2018)"
+    "text": "Data Collection\n\nInterviews\nSee (Yin 2014: 110-113) See Becker (1998)\nFrom Charmaz (2000: 525):\n\nA constructivist approach necessitates a relationship with respondents in which they can cast their stories in their terms. It means listening to their stories with openness to feeling and experience. … Furthermore, one-shot interviewing lends itself to a partial, sanitized view of experience, cleaned up for public discourse. The very structure of an interview may preclude private thoughts and feelings from emerging. Such a structure reinforces whatever proclivities a respondent has to tell only the public version of the story. Researchers’ sustained involvement with research participants lessens these problems.\n\nFontana and Frey (2000) spend some time writing about the emergence of an “interview society”, whereby interviews are commonly used to seek various forms of biographical information. They cite Gubrium and Holstein (1998), who noted that “the interview has become a means of contemporary storytelling, where persons divulge life accounts in response to interview inquiries”. They then go over a brief history of interviewing in the context of sociological research, which largely tracks the values underlying positivist and postmodernist transitions as you might expect.\n\nStructured interviewing\nFrom Fontana and Frey (2000: 649-651):\nInterviewers ask respondents a series of preestablished questions with a limited set of response categories. The interview records responses according to a preestablished coding scheme.\nInstructions to interviewers often follow these guidelines:\n\nNever get involved in long explanations of the study; use the standard explanation provided by the supervisor.\nNever deviate from the study introduction, sequence of questions, or question wording.\nNever let another person interrupt the interview; do not let another person answer for the respondent or offer his or her opinions on the question.\nNever suggest an answer or agree or disagree with an answer. Do not give the respondent any idea of your personal views on the topic of the question or the survey.\nNever interpret the meaning of a question; just repeat the question and give instructions or clarifications that are provided in training or by the supervisors.\nNever improvise, such as by assing answer categories or making wording changes.\n\nThe interviewer must establish a “balanced rapport”, being casual and friendly while also directive and impersonal. Interviewers must also perfect a style of “interested listening” that rewards respondents’ participation but does not evaluate their responses.\nFrom Fontana and Frey (2000: 651):\n\nThis kind of interview often elicits rational responses, but it overlooks or inadequately assesses the emotional dimension.\n\n\n\nGroup interviews\nFrom Fontana and Frey (2000: 651-652):\nCan be used to test a methodological technique, try out a definition of a research problem or to identify key informants. Pre-testing a questionnaire or survey design.\nCan be used to aid respondents’ recall of specific events or to stimulate embellished descriptions of events, or experiences shared by members of a group.\nIn formal group interviews, participants share views through the coordinator.\nLess formal group interviews are meant to establish the widest range of meaning and interpretation on a topic, and the objective is “to tap intersubjective meaning with depth and diversity”.\n\n\nUnstructured interviewing\nFrom Fontana and Frey (2000: 652-657):\nThe essence of an unstructured interview is establishing a human-to-human relation with the respondent and a desire to understand rather than to explain.\nFontana and Frey (2000) then goes on with some practical guidance on how to engage in unstructured interviews, largely concerned with how to access a community and relate with respondents.\n\n\n“New” takes on interviewing\nFontana and Frey (2000) address some “new” takes on interviewing emerging from the postmodern turn. I kinda think there is some potential behind approaches that emphasize interviews as negotiated accomplishment, or product of communal sensemaking between interviewer and respondent. I think it could be really helpful in the context of my research, which is very concerned with drawing out tensions that respondents have in mind but are not really able to articulate in a systematic way.\nHowever, Fontana and Frey (2000) also draws attention to crticism of highly engaged interviewing approaches, which seem to equate closeness with the respondent as getting closer to their “true self”, and which may not actually be fixed (especially in the context of the artificial environment of the interview setting). Critiques of such “closeness” use the term “romantic” or “crusading” as epithets. Moreover, there is additional reference to the culturally-embedded assumption that interviews are necessarily valuable sources of information, as if speaking ones mind can adequately convey one’s thoughts and experiences — this is criticized as a particularly western approach to information extraction surrounding internalized and externalized thoughts and behaviour, as instilled through participation in the “interview society” addressed earlier in the text.\n\n\nTranscribing\nThis section describes how I transcibe interviews and accounts for the decisions to encode certain things and not others. It goes on to explains the procedures for transcribing spoken dialog into textual formats, including the notation applied to encode idiosyncratic elements of conversational speech.\n\nTranscript notation\nDerived from the transcription protocol applied for the E-CURATORS project.\n\n\nCleaning audio\nTo clean the audio:\n\nI select a clip that is representative of a single source of background noise, and then filter that wavelength throughout the entire audio file.\nAfter selecting the clip, go to Effect &gt;&gt; Noise Reduction and select Get Noise Profile, then press OK.\nClose the noise reduction menu, select the entire range of audio using the keyboard shortcut Command + A.\nThen go back to the noise reduction window (Effect &gt;&gt; Noise Reduction) to apply the filter based on the noise profile identified for the noisy clip.\nExport the modified audio file to the working directory (File &gt;&gt; Export &gt;&gt; Export as .WAV).\nUse ffmpeg to replace the dirty audio track with the clean one:\n\n  ffmpeg -i dirty.mp4 -i clean.wav -c:v copy -map 0:v:0 -map 1:a:0 clean.mp4\n\n\n\n\nField notes\nSee (Yin 2014: 124-125)\n\n\nFocus groups\nFrom Kitzinger (1994); Wilkinson (1998); Parker and Tritter (2006); Morgan and Hoffman (2018).\n\nCrucially, focus groups involve the interaction of group participants with each other as well as with the moderator, and it is the collection of this kind of interactive data which distinguishes the focus group from the one-to-one interview (c.f. Morgan 1988), as well as from procedures which use multiple participants but do not permit interactive discussion (c.f. Stewart and Shamdasani 1990). The ‘hallmark’ of focus groups, then, is the ‘explicit use of group interaction to produce data and insights that would be less accessible without the interaction found in a group’ (Morgan 1997: 2).\n\nWilkinson (1998) identifies three key features of focus group methods:\n\nproviding access to participants’ own language, concepts and concerns;\n\n\n“The relatively free flow of discussion and debate between members of a focus group offers an excellent opportunity for hearing ‘the language and vernacular used by respondents’”\nUseful for gaining insight into participants’ conceptual worlds on their own terms\n“Sometimes, the participants even offer the researcher a ‘translation’ of unfamiliar terms or concepts”\n“Focus group interactions reveal not only shared ways of talking, but also shared experiences, and shared ways of making sense of these experiences. The researcher is offered an insight into the commonly held assumptions, concepts and meanings that constitute and inform participants’ talk about their experiences.”\n\n\nencouraging the production of more fully articulated accounts;\n\n\n“In focus groups people typically disclose personal details, reveal discrediting information, express strong views and opinions. They elaborate their views in response to encouragement, or defend them in the face of challenge from other group members: focus groups which ‘take off’ may even, like those run by Robin Jarrett (1993: 194) have ‘the feel of rap sessions with friends’.”\n“Even when bcus group participants are not acquainted in advance, the interactive nature of the group means that participants ask questions of, disagree with, and challenge each other, thus serving ‘to elicit the elaboration of responses’ (Merton 1987: 555).”\n“Other ethical issues in focus group research stem from group dynamics, insofar as participants can collaborate or collude effectively to intimidate and/or silence a particular member, or to create a silence around a particular topic or issue, for example. In such cases, it falls to the group moderator to decide whether/how to intervene, and it can be difficult to balance such conflicting goals as ensuring the articulation of accounts, supporting individuals, and challenging offensive statements.”\n\n\nand offering an opportunity to observe the process of collective sense-making.\n\n\nFocus groups also offer an opportunity for researchers to see exactly how views are constructed, expressed, defended and (sometimes) modified during the course of conversations with others, 1.e. to observe the process of collective sense-making in action. This is likely to be of particular interest to researchers working within a social constructionist framework, who do not view beliefs, ideas, opinions and understandings as generated by individuals in splendid isolation, but rather as built in interaction with others, in specific social contexts: as Radley and Billig (1996: 223) say, ‘thinking is a socially shared activity’. In a focus group, people are confronted with the need to make collective sense of their individual experiences and beliefs (Morgan and Spanish 1984: 259).\n\nWilkinson (1998) addresses opportunities and challenges in analyzing focus group data using content analysis and ethnographic techniques.\nWith regards to content analysis:\n\nthe main advantages of content analysis are to allow for a relatively systematic treatment of the data and to enable its presentation in summary form. … the researcher has first to decide on the unit of analysis: this could be the whole group, the group dynamics, the individual participants, or the participants’ utterances\n\n\nMorgan (1997) proposes three distinct ways of coding focus group data: noting whether each group discussion contains a given code; noting whether each participant mentions a given code; and noting all mentions of a given code (i.e. across groups or participants). Once the data have been coded in one (or more) of these ways, the question of whether to quantify them is a further issue. Morgan (1993) argues the value of simple ‘descriptive counts’ of codes (stopping short of using inferential statistical tests, whose assumptions are unlikely to be met in focus groups)\n\nAnd with regards to ethnographic analysis:\n\nIts main advantage is to permit a detailed interpretative account of the everyday social processes of communication, talk and action occurring within the focus group. The key issue in ethnographic analysis is how to select the material to present (whether this is framed up as ‘themes’, ‘discourses’, or simply as illustrative quotations), without violating the ‘spirit’ of the group, and without losing sight of the specific context within which the material was generated. … A particular challenge is how to preserve the interactive nature of focus group data: a surprising limitation of published focus group research is the rarity with which group interactions are analysed and reported ( c.f. Carey and Smith 1994, Kitzinger 1994a). Extracts from focus group data are most commonly presented as if they were one-to-one interview data, often with no indication that more than one person is present; still more rarely does interaction per se constitute the analytic focus.\n\n\nKitzinger (1994) elaborates on the interactive nature of focus groups, which she identifies as the methods’ core feature.\n\nFocus groups are group discussions organised to explore a specific set of issues sucb as people’s views and experiences … The group is ‘focused’ in the sense that it involves some kind of collective activity - such as viewing a film, examining a single health education message or simply debating a particular set of questions.\n\n\nEven when group work is explicitly included as part of the research it is often simply employed as a convenient way to illustrate a theory generated by other methods or as a cost-effective technique for interviewing several people at once. Reading some such reports it is hard to believe that there was ever more than one person in the room at the same time. This criticism even applies to many studies which explicitly identify their methodology as ‘focus group discussion’ — in spite of the fact that the distinguishing feature of focus groups is supposed to be the use of interaction as part of the research data.\n\n\nIt would be naive, however, to assume that group data is by definition ‘natural’ in the sense that it would have occurred without the group having been convened for this purpose. It is important to note that although, at times, the focus groups may approximate to participant observation the focus groups are artifidally set up situations. Rather than assuming the group session unproblematically and inevitably reflects ‘everyday interactions’ (although sometimes it will) the group sbould be used to encourage people to engage with one another, verbally formulate their ideas and draw out the cognitive structures which previously have been unarticulated.\n\nOn the active role of the facilitator:\n\nSessions were conducted in a relaxed fashion with minimal intervention from the facilitator - at least at first. This allowed the facilitator to ‘find her feet’ and permitted the research participants to set the priorities. However, the researcber was never passive. Trying to maximise interaction between participants could lead to a more interventionist style: urging debate to continue beyond the stage it might otberwise have ended, challenging people’s taken for granted reality and encouraging them to discuss the inconsistencies both between participants and within their own thinking.\n\nOn the role of the presentation or activity:\n\nSuch exercises not only provided invaluable data from each group but allow for some cross-compadsons between groups. Each discussion session has its own dynamic and direction — when it comes to analysis it is extremely useful to have a common external reference point such as that provided by the card game or the use of vignettes (Kban and Manderson 1992).\n\nOn complementary interactions:\n\nThe excbange between the research participants not only allows the researcher to understand which advertisement they are talking about but to gather data on their shared perception of that image.\n\n\nBrainstorming and loose word association was a frequent feature of the research sessions.\n\n\npeople’s knowledge and attitudes are not entirely encapsulated in reasoned responses to direct questions. Everyday forms of communication such as anecdotes, jokes or loose word association may tell us as much, if not more, about what people ‘know’. In this sense focus groups ‘reach the parts that other methods cannot reach’ - revealing dimensions of understanding that often remain untapped by the more conventional one-to-one interview or questionnaire.\n\n\nIn addition to the advantages discussed above fo exampie, discussing whether they had the ‘right’ to know if another child in the piay group bad had virus asserted that ‘you think of your own first’. It was this phrase, and these sort of sentiments, which seemed to capture their consent and resulted in nods of agreement round the group and assertions that ‘that’s right’ and ‘of course’. Indeed, it was often the strength of the collective reaction that highlighted the specific context within which the research participants experienced AIDS information.\n\nOn argumentative interactions:\n\nthe group process however, is not only about consensus and the articulation of group norms and experiences. Differences between individuals within the group are equally important and, in any case, rarely disappear from view. Regardless of how they are selected, the research participants in any one group are never entirely homogenous. Participants do not just agree with each other — they also misunderstand one another, question one another, try to persuade each other of the justice of their own point of view and sometimes they vehemently disagree.\n\n\nSuch unexpected dissent led them to clarify why they thpught as they did, often identifying aspects of their personal experience which bad altered their opinions or specific occasions which had made them re-think their point of view. Had the data been collected by interviews the researcber might have been faced with ‘arm chair’ theorizing about the causes of such difference but in a focus group these can be explored ‘in situ’ with the help of the research participants.\n\n\nClose attention to the ways in which research participants tell stories to one another aiso prevents the researcber from assuming that she knows ‘the meaning’ of any particular anecdote or account.\n\n\nParker and Tritter (2006) discuss “key issues relating to the complexity and necessity of considering sampling issues within the context of focus group research and the implications this has for the collection and analysis of resultant data.”\nIdentifies some common logistical impetus for focus groups, relating to acquisition of funding:\n\nIncreasing pressure from research funding organizations to adopt multiple-method research strategies and the fact that focus groups generate far more data than a range of other methods in relation to face-to-face contact between researchers and participants, has added to [the method’s popularity].\n\nCalls out the conflation between focus groups and group interviews:\n\nA similarly pervasive trend in and around academic discussion of qualitative research methods is that focus groups are sometimes seen as synonymous with group interviews and it is this issue which constitutes our second point of contention. … In keeping with the views of a number of other writers in this field, we are of the opinion that there is a fundamental difference between these two research techniques and that the critical point of distinction surrounds the role of the researcher and her/ his relationship to the researched (Smithson, 2000). In group interviews the researcher adopts an ‘investigative’ role: asking questions, controlling the dynamics of group discussion, often engaging in dialogue with specific participants. This is premised on the mechanics of one-to-one, qualitative, in-depth interviews being replicated on a broader (collective) scale. A relatively straightforward scenario ensues: the researcher asks questions, the respondents relay their ‘answers’ back to the researcher. In focus groups the dynamics are different. Here, the researcher plays the role of ‘facilitator’ or ‘moderator’; that is, facilitator/moderator of group discussion between participants, not between her/himself and the participants. Hence, where focus groups are concerned, the researcher takes a peripheral, rather than a centre-stage role for the simple reason that it is the inter-relational dynamics of the participants that are important, not the relationship between researcher and researched (see Kitzinger, 1994a; Johnson, 1996).\n\n\nPart of the problem of achieving this kind of interactional synergy in data collection is that, despite their collective interests, participants may not always be keen to engage with each other, or alternatively, may know each other so well that interaction is based on patterns of social relations that have little to do with the research intent of the focus group. The need to consider the impact on interaction of the constitution of the focus group requires that close attention be paid to methods (and outcomes) of recruit ment. … issues of sampling and selection are likely to prove crucial in relation to the form and quality of interaction in a focus group and therefore the kinds of data one gathers and the extent to which participants share their opinions, attitudes and life experiences.\n\nA large part of what follows is an extremely honest account of the challenges involved in recruiting participants to sit for focus groups. The pressure on students to recruit their friends impacted their views on what views were represented and not represented. Moreover, they draw attention to the role of timing and convenience in recruitment strategy, and representativeness of expressed viewpoints.\nI found it hard to take notes on this since it comes off as a continuous stream of conciousness. However it should still be read from top to bottom to get a sense of practical challenges that are not commonly addressed, save for among veterans and in private circles.\n\nMorgan and Hoffman (2018)"
   },
   {
     "objectID": "notes/methodology-notes.html#qda",
     "href": "notes/methodology-notes.html#qda",
     "title": "Methodology notes",
     "section": "QDA",
-    "text": "QDA\nMy QDA processes are most influenced by Kathy Charmaz and Johnny Saldaña, as well as the practical experiences instilled during my PhD and while working on E-CURATORS.\n\nSensitizing concepts\nFrom Kelle (2005):\n\nHerbert BLUMER invented the term “sensitizing concepts” to describe theoretical terms which “lack precise reference and have no bench marks which allow a clean cut identification of a specific instance” (1954, p.7). Sensitizing concepts are useful tools for descriptions but not for predictions, since their lack of empirical content permits researchers to apply them to a wide array of phenomena. Regardless how empirically contentless and vague they are, they may serve as heuristic tools for the construction of empirically grounded theories.\n\nSee Bowen (2006)\n\n\nCoding\nThese notes are largely derived from my reading of Saldaña (2016), provides a practical overview of what coding entails and specific methods and techniques.\nCoding as component of knowledge construction:\n\nCoding is an intermediate step, “the”critical link” between data collection and their explanation or meaning” (Charmaz (2001), as quoted in Saldaña (2016): 4)\n“coding is usually a mixture of data [summation] and data complication … breaking the data apart in analytically relevant ways in order to ead toward further questions about the data” (Coffey and Atkinson (1996): 29-31, as quoted and edited by Saldaña (2016): 9)\n\nThis relates to the paired notions of decodng when we reflect on a passage to decipher its core meaning, and encoding when we determine its appropriate code and label it (Saldaña 2016: 5).\n\nCoding “generates the bones of your analysis. … [I]ntegration will assemble those bones into a working skeleton” (Charmaz (2014): 113, quoted in Saldaña (2016): 9)\nTo codify is to arrange things in a systematic order, to make something part of a system or classification, to categorize\n\nWhat I sometimes refer to as arranging the code tree\nWhat Saldaña (2016) refers to as categories, I tend to refer to as stubs\n\nCategories are arranged into themes or concepts, which in turn lead to assertions or theories\n\nPre-coding techniques: - Data layout - Separation between lines or paragraphs may hold significant meaning - Putting interviewer words in square brackets or capital letters - Semantic markup - Bold, italics, underline, highlight - Meant to identify “codable moments” worthy of attention (Boyatzis (1998), as referenced in Saldaña (2016): 20) - Relates to Saldaña (2016): 22’s prompt: “what strikes you?” - Preliminary jottings - Tri-column exercise with the text on the left, first impression or preliminary code in the middle, and code on the right, after Liamputtong and Ezzy (2005): 270-273.\nAsking questions back to the interviewer, or participating in an imagined dialogue. I imagine this might be useful in situations where the time to hold an interview is quite limited and I have to work with limited responses that don’t touch on everything I want to cover. The form of questions maintains my tentativity, my unwillingness to commit or assume their responses, and opens the door for their own responses in rebuttal.\nMagnitude coding can be applied to tag positive/negative attitudes, but also other gradients like hard/soft, technical/social skills. May be useful to apply symbols using my little 12-button keypad.\nCan also use colons to identify a magnitude associated with a code’s usage, as per 88-89.\nNote: create a qc issue for sub-documents, for identifying sections of a document that are especially relevant and hiding less relevant sections. I don’t necessarily want to delete these lines, but I may want to hide them from view. Maybe this is possible using vscode, outside of qc (see https://stackoverflow.com/a/72954133).\nIn lieu of initial/open coding, I think I will opt to devise sensitizing concepts, which may amalgamate as memos. I could use the prefix “SC:” to denote sensitizing concepts.\nWhat saldana refers to as “concept coding” is what I have previously referred to as “theoretical coding” to a certain extent. It’s a form of lumping, identifying specific instances under the label of cohesive concepts.\nFrom Clarke (2003: 558) on process coding:\n\nIn a traditional grounded theory study, the key or basic social process is typically articulated in gerund form connoting ongoing action at an abstract level. Around this basic process are then constellated the particular and distinctive conditions, strategies, actions, and practices engaged in by human and nonhuman actors in volved with/in the process and their consequences. For example, subprocesses of disciplining the scientific study of reproduction include formalizing a scientific disci pline, gleaning fiscal support for research, producing contraceptives and other techno scientific products, and handling any social controversies the science provokes (such as cloning and stem cell research).\n\n\n\nMemos\nSaldana chapter 2 on “analytic memos”\n\n\nPreliminary analyses\nYin (2014: 135-136 5) identifies various strategies for analyzing case study evidence.\n\nA helpful starting point is to “play” with your data. You are searching for patterns, insights, or concepts that seem promising. (Yin 2014: 135)\n\nCiting Miles and Huberman (1994), Yin (2014) lists a few strategies at this playful stage:\n\nJuxtaposing data from different interviews\nPutting information into different arrays\nMaking a matrix of categories and placing the evidence within them\nTabulating the frequency of different events\nPutting information in chronological order or using some other temporal scheme\n\nYin (2014: 135) also emphasizes memo-writing as a core strategy at this stage, citing Corbin and Strauss (2014). These memos should include hints, clues and suggestions that simply put into writing any preliminary interpretation, essentially conceptualizing your data. He uses the specific example of shower thoughts.\n\n\nAnalytical strategies and techniques\nYin (2014: 136-142) then goes on to describe four general strategies:\n\nRelying on theoretical propositions\nWorking your data from the “ground up”\nDeveloping a case description\nExamining plausible rival explanations\n\nYin (2014: 142-168) then goes on to describe five analytical techniques:5\n5 I wonder: would Abbott (2004) call these heuristics?\nPattern matching\nExplanation building\nTime-series analysis\nLogic models\nCross-case synthesis\n\nRyan and Bernard (2000) describe various analysis techniques for analyzing textual elicitations in structured and codified ways.\n\n\nThe constant comparative method\nThe constant comparative method is based on action codes, similar to what Saldaña (2016) refers to as process codes. According to Charmaz (2000: 515): &gt; The constant comparative method of grounded theory means (a) comparing different people (such as their views, situations, actions, accounts, and experiences), (b) comparing data from the same individuals with themselves at different points in time, (c) comparing incident with incident, (d) comparing data with categori, and (e) comparing categories with other categories.\nMy initial impression is that this is very well suited for Stake’s (2006) multicase study framework, specifically with regards to his notion of the case-quintain dilemma. It also seems very well suited for analysis of situational meaning-making, as per Suchman (1987), Lave and Wenger (1991), Knorr Cetina (2001) and symbolic interactionism at large.\n\n\nSituational analysis\nSituational analysis originates from Strauss’s social worlds/arenas/negotiations framework. From Clarke (2003: 554):\n\nBuilding on and extending Strauss’s work, situational analyses offer three main cartographic approaches:\n\nsituational maps that lay out the major human, nonhuman, discursive, and other elements in the research situation of concern and provoke analyses of relations among them;\nsocial worlds/arenas maps that lay out the collective actors, key nonhuman elements, and the arena(s) of commitment within which they are engaged in ongoing negotiations, or mesolevel interpretations of the situation; and\npositional maps that lay out the major positions taken, and not taken, in the data vis-à-vis particular discursive axes of variation and difference, con cern, and controversy surrounding complicated issues in the situation.\n\n\nRefer to highlighted sections in Clarke (2003), bring those over at some point.\nClarke (2003) refers to Shim (2000) as an exemplary case of situational analysis in action.\n\n\nStatistical methods\ncrosstab\n\n\nOn software\nWeitzman (2000) provides an overview of software and qualitative research, including a minihistory up to the year 2000 when the chapter was published.\nDescribing the first programs specifically designed for analysis of qualitative data, Weitzman (2000: 804) writes:\n\nEarly programs like QUALOG and the first versions of NUDIST reflected the state of computing at that time. Researchers typically accomplished the coding of texts (tagging chunks of texts with labels — codes — that indicate the conceptual categories the researcher wants to sort them into) by typing in line numbers and code names at a command prompt, and there was little or no facility for memoing or other annotation or markup of text.6 In comparison with marking up text with coloured pencils, this felt awkward to many researchers. And computer support for the analysis of video or audio data was at best a fantasy.\n6 This caught my eye since its the same approach as that adopted by qc!\nThis history if followed by a sober account of what software can and can not do in qualitative research, as well as affirmation and dismissed of hopes and fears. Very reminiscient of Huggett (2018)."
+    "text": "QDA\nMy QDA processes are most influenced by Kathy Charmaz and Johnny Saldaña, as well as the practical experiences instilled during my PhD and while working on E-CURATORS.\n\nSensitizing concepts\nFrom Kelle (2005):\n\nHerbert BLUMER invented the term “sensitizing concepts” to describe theoretical terms which “lack precise reference and have no bench marks which allow a clean cut identification of a specific instance” (1954, p.7). Sensitizing concepts are useful tools for descriptions but not for predictions, since their lack of empirical content permits researchers to apply them to a wide array of phenomena. Regardless how empirically contentless and vague they are, they may serve as heuristic tools for the construction of empirically grounded theories.\n\nSee Bowen (2006)\n\n\nCoding\nThese notes are largely derived from my reading of Saldaña (2016), provides a practical overview of what coding entails and specific methods and techniques.\nCoding as component of knowledge construction:\n\nCoding is an intermediate step, “the”critical link” between data collection and their explanation or meaning” (Charmaz (2001), as quoted in Saldaña (2016): 4)\n“coding is usually a mixture of data [summation] and data complication … breaking the data apart in analytically relevant ways in order to ead toward further questions about the data” (Coffey and Atkinson (1996): 29-31, as quoted and edited by Saldaña (2016): 9)\n\nThis relates to the paired notions of decodng when we reflect on a passage to decipher its core meaning, and encoding when we determine its appropriate code and label it (Saldaña 2016: 5).\n\nCoding “generates the bones of your analysis. … [I]ntegration will assemble those bones into a working skeleton” (Charmaz (2014): 113, quoted in Saldaña (2016): 9)\nTo codify is to arrange things in a systematic order, to make something part of a system or classification, to categorize\n\nWhat I sometimes refer to as arranging the code tree\nWhat Saldaña (2016) refers to as categories, I tend to refer to as stubs\n\nCategories are arranged into themes or concepts, which in turn lead to assertions or theories\n\nPre-coding techniques: - Data layout - Separation between lines or paragraphs may hold significant meaning - Putting interviewer words in square brackets or capital letters - Semantic markup - Bold, italics, underline, highlight - Meant to identify “codable moments” worthy of attention (Boyatzis (1998), as referenced in Saldaña (2016): 20) - Relates to Saldaña (2016): 22’s prompt: “what strikes you?” - Preliminary jottings - Tri-column exercise with the text on the left, first impression or preliminary code in the middle, and code on the right, after Liamputtong and Ezzy (2005): 270-273.\nAsking questions back to the interviewer, or participating in an imagined dialogue. I imagine this might be useful in situations where the time to hold an interview is quite limited and I have to work with limited responses that don’t touch on everything I want to cover. The form of questions maintains my tentativity, my unwillingness to commit or assume their responses, and opens the door for their own responses in rebuttal.\nMagnitude coding can be applied to tag positive/negative attitudes, but also other gradients like hard/soft, technical/social skills. May be useful to apply symbols using my little 12-button keypad.\nCan also use colons to identify a magnitude associated with a code’s usage, as per 88-89.\nNote: create a qc issue for sub-documents, for identifying sections of a document that are especially relevant and hiding less relevant sections. I don’t necessarily want to delete these lines, but I may want to hide them from view. Maybe this is possible using vscode, outside of qc (see https://stackoverflow.com/a/72954133).\nIn lieu of initial/open coding, I think I will opt to devise sensitizing concepts, which may amalgamate as memos. I could use the prefix “SC:” to denote sensitizing concepts.\nWhat saldana refers to as “concept coding” is what I have previously referred to as “theoretical coding” to a certain extent. It’s a form of lumping, identifying specific instances under the label of cohesive concepts.\nFrom Clarke (2003: 558) on process coding:\n\nIn a traditional grounded theory study, the key or basic social process is typically articulated in gerund form connoting ongoing action at an abstract level. Around this basic process are then constellated the particular and distinctive conditions, strategies, actions, and practices engaged in by human and nonhuman actors in volved with/in the process and their consequences. For example, subprocesses of disciplining the scientific study of reproduction include formalizing a scientific disci pline, gleaning fiscal support for research, producing contraceptives and other techno scientific products, and handling any social controversies the science provokes (such as cloning and stem cell research).\n\n\n\nMemos\nSaldana chapter 2 on “analytic memos”\n\n\nAnalysis\n\nPreliminary analyses\nYin (2014: 135-136 5) identifies various strategies for analyzing case study evidence.\n\nA helpful starting point is to “play” with your data. You are searching for patterns, insights, or concepts that seem promising. (Yin 2014: 135)\n\nCiting Miles and Huberman (1994), Yin (2014) lists a few strategies at this playful stage:\n\nJuxtaposing data from different interviews\nPutting information into different arrays\nMaking a matrix of categories and placing the evidence within them\nTabulating the frequency of different events\nPutting information in chronological order or using some other temporal scheme\n\nYin (2014: 135) also emphasizes memo-writing as a core strategy at this stage, citing Corbin and Strauss (2014). These memos should include hints, clues and suggestions that simply put into writing any preliminary interpretation, essentially conceptualizing your data. He uses the specific example of shower thoughts.\n\n\nAnalytical strategies and techniques\nYin (2014: 136-142) then goes on to describe four general strategies:\n\nRelying on theoretical propositions\nWorking your data from the “ground up”\nDeveloping a case description\nExamining plausible rival explanations\n\nYin (2014: 142-168) then goes on to describe five analytical techniques:5\n5 I wonder: would Abbott (2004) call these heuristics?\nPattern matching\nExplanation building\nTime-series analysis\nLogic models\nCross-case synthesis\n\nRyan and Bernard (2000) describe various analysis techniques for analyzing textual elicitations in structured and codified ways.\n\n\nThe constant comparative method\nThe constant comparative method is based on action codes, similar to what Saldaña (2016) refers to as process codes. According to Charmaz (2000: 515): &gt; The constant comparative method of grounded theory means (a) comparing different people (such as their views, situations, actions, accounts, and experiences), (b) comparing data from the same individuals with themselves at different points in time, (c) comparing incident with incident, (d) comparing data with categori, and (e) comparing categories with other categories.\nMy initial impression is that this is very well suited for Stake’s (2006) multicase study framework, specifically with regards to his notion of the case-quintain dilemma. It also seems very well suited for analysis of situational meaning-making, as per Suchman (1987), Lave and Wenger (1991), Knorr Cetina (2001) and symbolic interactionism at large.\n\n\nSituational analysis\nSituational analysis originates from Strauss’s social worlds/arenas/negotiations framework. From Clarke (2003: 554):\n\nBuilding on and extending Strauss’s work, situational analyses offer three main cartographic approaches:\n\nsituational maps that lay out the major human, nonhuman, discursive, and other elements in the research situation of concern and provoke analyses of relations among them;\nsocial worlds/arenas maps that lay out the collective actors, key nonhuman elements, and the arena(s) of commitment within which they are engaged in ongoing negotiations, or mesolevel interpretations of the situation; and\npositional maps that lay out the major positions taken, and not taken, in the data vis-à-vis particular discursive axes of variation and difference, con cern, and controversy surrounding complicated issues in the situation.\n\n\nClarke (2003: 560) identifies the main purpose of situational data as a way of “opening up” the data, figuing out where and how to enter:\n\nAlthough they may do so, a major and perhaps the major use for them is “opening up” the data –— interrogating them in fresh ways. As researchers, we constantly confront the problem of “where and how to enter.” Doing situational analyses offers new paths into the full array of data sources and lays out in various ways what you have to date. These approaches should be considered analytic exercises — constituting an ongoing research “work out” of sorts—well into the research trajectory. Their most important outcome is provoking the researcher to analyze more deeply.\n\nShe emphasizes that this is meant to stimulate thinking, and should always be paired with comprehensive memoing before, during and after situation mapping excercises.\nA key feature that I think is invaluable is the ability to uncover the sites of silence, or the things that I as a researcher suspect are there but are not readily visible in my evidence. Situational analysis is useful for drawing out the thousand pound gorillas in the room that no one wants to talk about, and is therefore important for identifying things to address during continual data collection, as is one of the (often ignored) central pillars of grounded theory:\n\nThe fourth and last caveat is perhaps the most radical. As trained scholars in our varied fields, usually with some theoretical background, we may also suspect that certain things may be going on that have not yet explicitly appeared in our data. As ethically accountable researchers, I believe we need to attempt to articulate what we see as the sites of silence in our data. What seems present but unarticulated? What thousand-pound gorillas are sitting around in our situations of concern that nobody has bothered to mention as yet (Zerubavel 2002)? Why not? How might we pursue these sites of silence and ask about the gorillas without putting words in the mouths of our participants? These are very important directions for theoretical sampling. That is, the usefulness of the approaches elucidated here consists partly in helping the researcher think systematically through the design of research, espe cially decisions regarding future data to collect.\n\nThe process is remarkably similar to the brainstorming excercise I did with Costis one time. Starts by articulating the actors involved, their roles and relationships, the things they do, the things they make.\n\nThe goal here is to lay out as best one can all the human and nonhuman elements in the situation of concern of the research broadly conceived. In the Meadian sense, the questions are: Who and what are in this situation? Who and what matters in this situation? What elements “make a difference” in this situation?\n\nAfter jotting these down on a canvas or whiteboard, arrange them into more concrete categories. In each category, refer to examples or specific instances. Concepts can occur in multiple categories. By arranging these concepts, grouping them thematically, spatially, and through relationships and associations with arrows or lines (presumably, with labels indicating the nature of these relationships), this provides the researcher with a viable way of unlocking new pathways to think through their data. I imagine this will be especially helpful when arranging or re-arranging the coding tree.\nClarke (2003: 569-570) also dedicates a few paragraphs to relational forms of analysis using this technique:\n\nRelations among the various elements are key. You might not think to ask about certain relations, but if you do what I think of as quick and dirty relational analyses with the situational map, they can be revealing. The procedure here is to take each element in turn and think about it in relation to each other element on the map. One does this by circling one element and mentally or literally drawing lines, one at a time, between it and every other ele ment on the map and specifying the nature of the relationship by describing the nature of that line.\n\n\nYou could highlight (in blue perhaps) that organization’s perspectives on all the other actors to see which actors are attended to and which are not, as well as the actual contents of the organization’s discourses on its “others.” Silences can thus be made to speak.\n\nClarke (2003: 569) On how to generate memos from situational analysis:\n\nEach map in turn should lead to a memo about the relations diagrammed. At early stages of analysis, such memos should be partial and tentative, full of questions to be answered about the nature and range of particular sets of social relations, rather than being answers in and of themselves.\n\nClarke (2003: 570) addresses the energy or mood required to do this kind of work, which is reminiscient of Yin’s (2014: 73-74) description of the “mental and emotional exhaustion at the end of each fieldwork day, due to the depletion of ‘analytic energy’ associated with being attention on your toes.” Interesting that the mention of “freshness” is brought up in the context of Glaser’s tabla rasa approach to grounded theory.\n\nAs a practical matter, doing the situational map and then the relational analyses it organizes can be tiring and/or anxiety producing and/or elating. Work on it until you feel stale and then take a break. This is not the same order of work as entering bibliographic citations. The fresher you are, the more you can usually see. Glaser (1978: 18-35) cautions against prematurely discussing emergent ideas –— that we might not necessarily benefit from talking about everything right away but rather from reflection — and memoing. I strongly agree, especially about early even if quick and dirty memoing. But we all must find our own ways of working best. For most, the work of this map occurs over time and through multiple efforts and multiple memos.\n\nClarke (2003) refers to Shim (2000) as an exemplary case of situational analysis in action.\n\n\n\nQDA software and tooling\nWeitzman (2000) provides an overview of software and qualitative research, including a minihistory up to the year 2000 when the chapter was published.\nDescribing the first programs specifically designed for analysis of qualitative data, Weitzman (2000: 804) writes:\n\nEarly programs like QUALOG and the first versions of NUDIST reflected the state of computing at that time. Researchers typically accomplished the coding of texts (tagging chunks of texts with labels — codes — that indicate the conceptual categories the researcher wants to sort them into) by typing in line numbers and code names at a command prompt, and there was little or no facility for memoing or other annotation or markup of text.6 In comparison with marking up text with coloured pencils, this felt awkward to many researchers. And computer support for the analysis of video or audio data was at best a fantasy.\n6 This caught my eye since its the same approach as that adopted by qc!\nThis history if followed by a sober account of what software can and can not do in qualitative research, as well as affirmation and dismissed of hopes and fears. Very reminiscient of Huggett (2018)."
   },
   {
     "objectID": "notes/methodology-notes.html#writing",
     "href": "notes/methodology-notes.html#writing",
     "title": "Methodology notes",
     "section": "Writing",
-    "text": "Writing\nSee Richardson (2000), who frames writing as a method of inquiry.\nSee Mitchell and Charmaz (1996)\nSee Charmaz (2000: 526-528)"
+    "text": "Writing\nRichardson (2000), who frames writing as a method of inquiry. While much of it deals with the history of social science writing and the impact of postmodernism (which I’m honestly not really that interested in, at this point at least), there are some excellent creative writing tips scatttered throughout the latter section. One notable technique is her distinction between four kinds of notes:\n\nObservation notes: Concrete and detailed, accurate renditions of things I see, hear, feel and taste, and so on. Remain close to the scene as experienced through the senses.\nMethodological notes: Messages to self about how to collect data — who to talk to, what to wear, when to get in touch.\nTheoretical notes: Hunches, hypotheses, poststructuralist connections, critiques of what I’m doing/thinking/seeing, keeping me from getting hooked on one view of reality.\nPersonal notes: Uncensored feeling statements about the research, the people I’m talking to, my doubts, anxieties, pleasures. These can also be great sources of hypotheses (for example, if I am feeling anxious, others I’m speaking with might feel the same way, which provides a string to tug on).\n\nSee Mitchell and Charmaz (1996)\nSee Charmaz (2000: 526-528)"
   },
   {
     "objectID": "posts.html",
diff --git a/sitemap.xml b/sitemap.xml
index 4b74d41..bbb153b 100644
--- a/sitemap.xml
+++ b/sitemap.xml
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@
   </url>
   <url>
     <loc>https://zackbatist.info/CITF-Postdoc/notes/methodology-notes.html</loc>
-    <lastmod>2025-02-17T21:37:21.395Z</lastmod>
+    <lastmod>2025-02-19T17:05:08.319Z</lastmod>
   </url>
   <url>
     <loc>https://zackbatist.info/CITF-Postdoc/posts.html</loc>