From 85cf1d30f72837a28e7069178f589b0457fff3ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: zackbatist Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:35:36 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Built site for gh-pages --- .nojekyll | 2 +- CITF-Postdoc.bib | 41 ++++- ethics-protocol.pdf | Bin 51457 -> 51465 bytes notes.html | 4 +- notes/methodology-notes.html | 279 +++++++++++++++++++---------------- research-protocol.pdf | Bin 70382 -> 70381 bytes search.json | 104 ++++++++++--- sitemap.xml | 2 +- 8 files changed, 277 insertions(+), 155 deletions(-) diff --git a/.nojekyll b/.nojekyll index dfdda06..0cc8700 100644 --- a/.nojekyll +++ b/.nojekyll @@ -1 +1 @@ -48386825 \ No newline at end of file +3b0ecf03 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/CITF-Postdoc.bib b/CITF-Postdoc.bib index e8af097..dff42b6 100644 --- a/CITF-Postdoc.bib +++ b/CITF-Postdoc.bib @@ -13717,6 +13717,19 @@ @article{dennis2018 file = {/Users/zackbatist/Library/CloudStorage/Dropbox/zotero/Dennis 2018 - An Extension Without an Exhibition.pdf;/Users/zackbatist/Library/CloudStorage/Dropbox/zotero/Dennis 2018 - An Extension Without an Exhibition2.pdf} } +@book{denzin1978, + title = {The {{Research Act}}: {{A Theoretical Introduction}} to {{Sociological Methods}}}, + shorttitle = {The {{Research Act}}}, + author = {Denzin, Norman K.}, + date = {1978}, + eprint = {gfS1AAAAIAAJ}, + eprinttype = {googlebooks}, + publisher = {McGraw-Hill}, + isbn = {978-0-07-016361-4}, + langid = {english}, + pagetotal = {392} +} + @book{denzin1989, title = {The {{Research Act}}: {{A Theoretical Introduction}} to {{Sociological Methods}}}, shorttitle = {The {{Research Act}}}, @@ -41086,16 +41099,34 @@ @article{patrik1985 file = {/Users/zackbatist/Library/CloudStorage/Dropbox/zotero/Patrik 1985 - Is There an Archaeological Record.pdf} } -@article{patton2015, - title = {What to Observe: {{Sensitizing}} Concepts}, +@book{patton2014, + title = {Qualitative {{Research}} and {{Evaluation Methods}}: {{Integrating Theory}} and {{Practice}}}, + shorttitle = {Qualitative {{Research}} \& {{Evaluation Methods}}}, + author = {Patton, Michael Quinn}, + date = {2014-10-29}, + edition = {4}, + publisher = {SAGE Publications}, + abstract = {Drawing on more than 40 years of experience conducting applied social science research and program evaluation, author Michael Quinn Patton has crafted the most comprehensive and systematic book on qualitative research and evaluation methods, inquiry frameworks, and analysis options available today. Now offering more balance between applied research and evaluation, this Fourth Edition illuminates all aspects of qualitative inquiry through new examples, stories, and cartoons; more than a hundred new summarizing and synthesizing exhibits; and a wide range of new highlight sections/sidebars that elaborate on important and emergent issues. For the first time, full case studies are included to illustrate extended research and evaluation examples. In addition, each chapter features an extended "rumination," written in a voice and style more emphatic and engaging than traditional textbook style, about a core issue of persistent debate and controversy.}, + isbn = {978-1-4833-1481-5}, + langid = {english}, + pagetotal = {1689}, + file = {/Users/zackbatist/Library/CloudStorage/Dropbox/zotero/Patton 2014 - Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods Integrating Theory and Practice.pdf} +} + +@incollection{patton2014a, + title = {What to {{Observe}}: {{Sensitizing}} Concepts}, shorttitle = {What to Observe}, + booktitle = {Qualitative {{Research}} and {{Evaluation Methods}}}, author = {Patton, Michael Quinn}, - date = {2015}, - journaltitle = {Qualitative research and evaluation methods}, + date = {2014}, + edition = {4}, pages = {358--363}, + publisher = {SAGE Publications}, url = {https://www.academia.edu/download/38719540/Sensitizing_concepts.pdf}, urldate = {2025-02-19}, - file = {/Users/zackbatist/Library/CloudStorage/Dropbox/zotero/Patton 2015 - What to observe Sensitizing concepts.pdf} + isbn = {978-1-4833-1481-5}, + langid = {english}, + file = {/Users/zackbatist/Library/CloudStorage/Dropbox/zotero/Patton 2014 - What to Observe Sensitizing concepts.pdf} } @article{pauketat2001, diff --git a/ethics-protocol.pdf b/ethics-protocol.pdf index 587cd931c033d2f425935a0c34cacd636a0daec5..d3f67b641f0f81ae8a2e9cfb0ac8567b28a57c8f 100644 GIT binary patch delta 7068 zcmai&Wmptkw}$D?p}V_th@ly}yJhI^uAvbWLtUU()5lTU0tl81kz z2J3EAqLbD)F*ly%d2cn@$(E(Fd`*eDch@_zM@@PW@LUM9QJ4evd0-zv^P73y>~$MF zRH8$H6m4R*R{KeXU%Vxx+Mj=#dCcpFRz30ijz26Nw{Bj1mk$Bg{T0sR*z781fD&7B zTj&z95)OZ?3k>rN}q3oqiSXKfymcNfBB36M7h!(HUs`nC*f`3=;w2P(r+T zy4V$?h<2D&)1gQ02%BL zno?PwnZ^RePy0w;>}J>u*I`*F@tIvv#BX=K5=X1ebQ?{zw1gqH9PTMoj3f z{`v3Qs~v+p7nJ9X;QDdY`boExXrN4z-&ns$F^&?@!{Vjh7p;@KJI$~9>#ToPKT1E( zyim|PY|c?jJP}*jwe7#T2_VOHYwZ2|yA@}9bfPTk8ofKIPDaBRN<3WRq^r=2-5An8 zu>Fz#K7iKN(Zj;_DvNdB?To=%938_Bz7QP0VO%u%T`NiN9qpiao*CA$zg2#U+VjU( zdComrk6OUoS5dsg@v2T@Ni2r+qG!@nq+nmwg=B7`m!s%pCt0D@iSGKH+cx7u>^jy% zfdG;T9oc4^fQN{2{z0!E)dB{xlk(VPo9g_jqUeaPm1>98`fOq|8Fz=Y3Hl$rU0o^8 z6injb5wH#&8L0Sw85y?WF{((Cd~rn{>CTgtux^VFK-7wtdS4>$^Il8ZOG47AhN5AQ z*!YC(zr0-zO4jo)m%Q@x>&c#Sz0>4^cWm+(7n}Mv;>S}3b1p|UvP~C6`g{!!n+|I> z-ak%z0-o+~IX9eI3eKAA0?Dv;!GTbLsi`p;lk!S29pX1|)$u}s+c(zg!7iWE^X5P- z54KEqE9)uLa~}^>g~rxv1ZK<*Sk|f<*T}Jhvro9NRqXg$NT<4Th79Lw2}>D-{TTXt!8#&m?uqg3=q_* zm9&d9XhPGhZIHkT&k}p-BS77oFHH$zGSfXdfZUS|0-m*?W+o5^5lz0 zioQZ;n)*q0V{T<@zUlK*!Qcazi^ghO$OCg1)#GhL_zM|fWqf^kkiK4qYnM=axi44S z-`(W?PMB0r^zLbJZ{OE6*kETg$wayPN$TG7Ni%K2m!~dTsA&;JL%9@O;VI_%E`q)v zTK{JBuww9=Jn!wp6I|U&9Qpc-@9jcbo{iJ~qs)5q(R{+17aEJ%RX0+mZy@ZePzWPkUEmo>N1$Lg~iQZZ|vkuaPD@tc-crRK!xgBhmYwqIU&wc;LfQ4~bQEDj^* za>K{GYXToz0zUqB0}2t3v1`el$+;WQLmdUNG(WxV&Vw<(2g80*_F*~~A1LW#pK2>g zBjcPBr7@L*bd`hd&=xJ~l(6_Tg)C;GJxSOQUt`^L%W2pU1lfsFDp=)*w5s|>Xrt?7 zVLusgig88X4jaSVCUL~sSW0G46Qeu;jU45CVVu%9#qTimQwL0^58scFH4VuN2F;T0!e>OC=gYN(eL=|1WxDUwOgVvxfb>jx#&vOEkJ@Q-c z;qpsJXf359kVXcdcf~h933Tv1aK=# z@g-5s??2(uk2`vXO&nJBeFNUmwvzL2K0=40;n=C0DuKm>%KgYML;30{D&V4Ien*tI zxo&j}>ok(Gb=Faqt*{$oiksFxa$UuDGkLN^8bl88Lx|09VV?I%3x08M<2U@TqW3d% zh60k=p9fp&yUBn)a`$X8SEu5e6LEt(uY6J;bp$v)A1@$4mQ@EOQu$TaPD_*R2h>dY z;QN2mwm0JbKL|IF^Gy^c*u3Hc*_oQMn4BeMl9*dz{mqfxqz9<5<*?&Her)CLAqW|~ zX67%}W2%EAz0!#k6$W$Y(FwkCzv-}juX^OaoZL#E4TrQC!C`)hD@A@64$7rMbF2F| zXG6QDQ|&2Nb&&Z|zg{D~29;^(ZNJ>_U?Qn5msSIEjMx}ovcn(dQYN#=Fse4<7KEqR z=(f#O;;)Im7ljCnX${M2|I-LqC!Q-8djv#{9SqMg5ZBd2)ItYs7l?nW|4F~=6}hTO z<2cVyGrbP&;G(+d89c_FF|=tW{Qk7p_^O^9T1D=yg6Hhx^uK)z?4vI(EZtZaJ1`iZ zAoLc|v284hilNFG0QgrSUQ_P>!v=#9k1=6_!F#?SFB%SAqD>Brm7t{8&UCuk>kDl; z%ZN2Kf1$8qM`Xab-N+IFnHU)2NAI z0qxm$8$$BT>^G6okAI@?8ueX%MD$2Q6gH*31rHse{phKi2~ouY%H7Lf%Kl@PDp~aK z&nN&PzvaW1NJgecO$pMz;#=ZFhKnyCSX;rJ?f+) z_Ti|)zV;s;fWL(7O!BneM$Uh3zm{mH0v*L~)!2%V-W^|ZFPK{>xkr7Uqop$uc}7XC z4M0Wys|3W16Dlq&{9oTIY|ir^PEK6h@gd!KvMy{faaAk8_1>4ei`F`v|8f%h`JVGW znUVJ8uZ^PcD^bwq7s-vE{Z!|9$l(e(d!A2_V+p&A~-MHh6DIX=i zI!>rt!^L2Dnx<7ZRRqnvysl>Tin)k%O9pc9&rv^}L}lc*w5G#;R4?DxtaDqt%$b{< z!XzLl)xs;8%U>h+`CKKnTif(u&xQZiT&3?&Q-OvDM+ud?i#(~6<2(-mrK&FdwCLyN zo<4-rsl>!hpeUkIZWK>`o)=b();9aeXb)nC^}9?I`x2uX2cv}aV1~mDEB@r=VH@X= zMzg>~9y5^HiwCKgSDIH!P$xL*lW>lV{ z!QK^*7q7s;z_5-Gi_88s^ECC@2PZ0G$K=xWhYg%J?hO);kKq1px`ESse1+V_jDHIy zX~F$Z7x==0398|RmRwEfk5&e>v>J%F0C?X0_|U>pK;PdQZ#l;=Mn_?4>Aue_10$7? zam#@xCeUayi?8v_Wsz3`e8Afjay|UKdf#F$8CiHQ?#JfuZmxnvB{h&T@oA_gXzz?XOW)J9G#$IM+_AT-|?7%nxa@@@$SAm@Pw$-mJ*C zs-H2tgfp&iypn~m6T$J>n`NCWLFPp3{>_DD@aLx`@R!b=T$t;J8Zp_7t*mbqn-C>; zL^J<~i5h4!72CooMC^yMI3+QJj(w_qecJYK}*==My2NLPH z0O@t~7#`PGI-Im;-%rNv9iT4J4mPa4Q#!n)S(oEV_#EClVXU2j2oyXAc~3*-mtbgu z8UY3TPPO8D`G>O53c#z&l?sMkhFe^5D!p}8$HESog`>lK4T8VnqU4VtT3n0^9f#?t zW>tib^=}d@UAO~n!i%SPGtqEgFmS8r*Q0dFf)^>E$Yebf7hBLOhvN8P~)}6Tzr3^ zqOu&hvVX&shL3p#bqy0u^I>nHTJF=df>BMw%P~pz_Ly;}rMTXdDPWUZMb^g&@1{!m z)u-4fqZ;=Ov$2W9t3a*UFy9GxEFcJDR!~yWsT~&x&lrmnWTm5~l$7~msYiIg@mT2Z zrKbkaw_-U1mkGJ?-_iJKS-h+(WZ5AVW64Mu`aA{`UdCTWlM-^btNlTdiV{v3j50Qu zKqtjB@dLC7Ctb7wbX0NK?ZgeEpGkGVsr6vWfL`oiDHJG@A1eDCQRF(XblmvqvyVLd zIs{bw1l%Z?Q@?vZ)jDgT5Sh>5d>^JM@pR%kKph5u1j&{ZxunSM-c6mmN%AkAEP%OW zkJ?WCY>*`i^Lkg1^#rzTm%4G~@ya^P!|a8+8#LRe8#!^3PnBtT*)puH`*l0x+$CBQ zA2e}?Z5w_eq1P{;LgaJygD;KYkG{eW7gI{og0n%O!93@C^~01+U`KgkOpz6vk9Ymc zvc(!kemFoz3D^ww@U$UvUCP3%Os}8PX5;?&ia5NJ%<(>q?KRY&^K1!(p_ZPc+e){>EDU zU-`13(`NQeS!k|xB!AmXXbESPZasuCPtET-ZEUd;(Eu-9_)U{Tgr=o!s&|;Kh*$AM zvK}0b)#B(frS6L;_d+G9QWd(Uo0Ct-O~`d>G?v%UT21(#O&UT~IxYE+WKN?3oh+~# zuumdEL$tYI-$Q%J)8d?j@b&dRwZM9r$J15li0RN`u!MD-9$ThL10$qF$Cnc(Z}mru zjFJ+^sAt`!KDI@q^Wqt##t1R@@Ajg>$%XK6 zCrv3G*4i9at)Yr0uXmLqV+oMgmWPtSl=KX7!P=eTx+Sb(&iv(j-$%OUxx8d-qN%I$ z#>YSqx5ric<2qq74_+B4*@6+Oidf}OYZCt>F608dg4iK?1Zc^TYQC8>luLiL);h;M z7sy1K#vhH9m^{ik<+dd?a!!kl9_yD6`kSUGbHENP?B|}!fI9xA^u0xdvd_xsD^r2W zHPE+jfnkBj$a)3>T?ZSxlC>TkeqY^F${8bY9IuQG*dqJu4_fDQE*t2v>1u70tz!k? zeYoj)g0MUqvZiyukKN2(3*LUy zr#h2kSFSrZ&{{z>?i8g;2_DtfAoB38v~cd^hvaJ|U2`Rk0qVj=OSSc1F?>cTiku}a zSX#E2VyieYra!Em;$A`P=fP}lM5L!av-OE|od;UA+-AO@!Xz?fo#9D``wa(gh;N|3A(^u$+5$L^CioQ#(YM`gU znX}hCD~db)P1U*k*u9nm=AWVV%eh+uc*DW_mSBCYrB%jphiJAshJ`6)`UrgbTHwTe z=H6@^_~mNNLAG;)d-hToF;h$!iu3*=I4s-jdhmpY9Y@t$ZdWxCExc3dla zKK&P~$HX1VbQi*O#G9->M6N7Na@#JIHI}geTlPeS!y}Tjds;Fay5S{ItZVSrOU7E2 zGbvFG3}qF^zmrLNh#6sRMI(+_3|iJQ{0t9+SbzhLRzLJSmKvOkiI?0fJRJy#!{onb zbg`z8byqe^Y%8o|Tv4Z1b%R+b7bK%PQ!|Ih7MZZDsqn-%DW#-=a9;0`D0=6kGgh~# z&a*_`g_ptC$2N-;Z-P--DC?46 z`(zr{!J)m$Y#%BIXbGq?21(c z4XdrZ%}o02|5?LKDHrgkghP_d^Eh87b0`WTORasYDJq&ro{WN#SZZY7it}|zjFe7= z&%v{K)Tj%@+;kK(!ifed{SeFaPEpnbJ5k`R5hnC!S!uAg#5QBv`Kk^Ig#bo90P{h@>_@vxK?8jrGPj5BFVXU5*B7ru zKgdAe*?m$*8>FY&e>nMk?uHb(aB4Y@{2CU~7bvbwOP~8fHgErL1YpR3lOWPME4|{Y zpZt(oH6GBOT$A`ax+Hv%80giok^Y5r-A9Cg22LaMJLypHmRB~x?BYlb5B2V^v;5El zx$IfYP?Q2=PDyMPUOSRIG$aS2X&%O}qkRi~VN)LylBg)pc&;bJ6+YTNHuIysRNJhX zrV)8%;}l1jnB0?Cc8;{ zeg5%uB1npEgw(P^a8!a;G0t-B+j(^XSTFn)iWDcOOLnr275sv5_zo9 zlXw6SHu8X53z!$zt*=cnm^d=4*4S{uQ#Q^$e}0dZYgD%JK68XU~T;{ki}cNob{dOa%A-j-`pIN@VZ=x()g@3T?K zg&3?8Kw$hKIs7sB?Ox%%t#t%@Wj&QBkAP57U#y@IhcUqZfF zU>~arnzDuAHQy_BBEF_S|2+5)p7Bm-ainOK?o+o@s%Fa!Wg+?pme%+35BpyRnBMr) z7A}VS$ji}WmlS7-|CDt9q@qz_;TbD3XNzA`Vi(+I>w4Y6?UmmJ*+6hIt~x^_gZk*E zIK!`b!%rn42cIpwt1~TY5L-S~f3$9U+i+s3wx{ea(MR5M-zpFuq!PTaY?w--5F&cM zdOFNiC@wrJ_Ul$7xdCphRSj6q5q8^S4eT#sYI?@RbG zB8l%B{e>Uce*MHx)$h$rj^rO&o3{;I7=3fNW#ETy8&W#azV%{0>-u(>6q-9nR`+IqqAK|WD*kh?g!!qA`A@>}XVm5p$@l-x zk4uxZ%F>b&Kxr{ih`5u4xP%i#T1;9@%t2HXA_f$efH?iL1pxhjCtyNT>i@l45?BC= zsTxwJTwcw(?-w=|Ud@JEN;lC{4yQwuCqHX-y$1G-kMf>w0vR(v}gQdnuON*U%u zD>ek+Ujwb#{*hS;C?Z90TG|!8MX(?}iwqH%A|!-uBwP~f5ffO0BtjXwk8qUe#n3V_ z(!UeIRbsdSr6g&?L=%|=90qvK21FE@XnmR3cLpdqnRup|sQHzP=`284tL=v@Zb zH^Mkg2%I?t(Ix^H9l_>UvqGmUCBXSYpt^+rzzL84;2ApJ+AGx5XW`zq*I{vtNT9Kl zTc9O{zFT?!=S`PQz^}S4?vy603IItH1#Vd9)OW*W^A@!_(SltBaF8ta%^y tBW0x$^v(0^V}-7#Rxz{_^c(5?iK$OZ4j;BY&4?#048-H$0PCya{SU;uO?3bO delta 7049 zcmai2RZtv?k_`l%;0zkv-C=;>?(Xgq+&zOk1Q^^0pAcMwCAjP0?h-6WfDmNwd$k|? zwzg{j`lI{foIZ70;?mxRrM<1MQUvphi2=O4J#8&r0RF3{Y35E5T)@GtXJEh?v8<}o zTo~HN(_@D=?zI?Eqi$cR_w=hVpZ+?k9a|tonR~wGLrg#$wQXNWvj4)?cq+pdlD_c$ zK3B~eQ1f<8-}BPrKd=~m8h4r%a_!*kxZhQp2>F|A?pHM38Ddtod4H%F1Op!qOCP?| z(@Yxa@1`AMcU$_?O?lj*>oeXrV>$6m`tClWr^(Qyg)uPqPRv`jL(^X1L&dk1Q8!aR zC@U;1KnbX{(j1rmjX_~IW?a@+Q-c6>O=0+#*eAc z`II+T$gvSP%!I`l&3w(jH0i-_Jn{|Gs1O=;=|=PnNsI!cA4qMgyF!te5NaftndJQP z>^~S7MF>PA9s^0xUJ$XH`RLds4c}ZMj+N0fLE7Uqi>cQmCB)G$=MH;2o5{EJ`cfms z(dBti3>S8H%w1o6w}o?pJuj4RX6|Gw8H)~YxhoD-Pd(fxxbjl-D=M)yZ?o@f&nwt& zo)Ky3hL<5c%EAbI5Eo@4@V`2MU$Y?*xj0At)i{UUIYb!(N9T{O!hXJke>mw!M1Q)t zC|WiaGD zm8@tB+uVf~lW3f?Dmu@5{Kj$Gx&m7E6TX3n&wJFlyZL)&zrq=8nC74Or}XPZpr3t0 zl55>BzCp196#cw-_9?@#RIBGdWVKvC7ag(wSlV;D7IxxG z))DS#ZTVw{E6dS}0RqT z?-?~CC9@Dxt0D~M{SP%m);>l^;6z`B#CJP0_wHS^;vkjcBA$d*K$qkgVL19L*$G`C zKCjeK0Kk?o@9V@=Vv$>XlB4_%c)4eDmMOW$k$2q%g&AbRA%Qlz;8%R~w*H0}*qJj$EyE3!Lf^dRg+f>fF)+*mW`)DHhoJ)&%*7(F z!R1BB`1N)WS0S8FAXwlp;DO&~H; zbkzn^ss%s?tyRLgP(h)pa$<=4su>}}fqR`kLcg1>v2+}<-x(b)bxvxksgZRYFLj<9 zN3e_yzzfN)9X8~F(j?V7=t+p{^RX7Q<`QJLi|Ld>D>YLOjkWI0j(=|{UJOBw+$rV* zx-Zsr&1(vVHqMKU%K{FKrSJL4A1&`ZFF8f4PWvF5dO*lGHAVywWJisJz>?(45S=!Y zRJ9ND*%^n+krii61vvy;odBGAer>vxXmz#pd!aXZcip?CY3b#Vg;nit&RY_g&;gT6 zd#zjbL?c`=7JA|^W+fbUe!V<89Ik5%*~&Bp_MDv`+!=Oc-CN^2YOe9>QC>z6a0g^j zUM$VFc3!L}EU@5Mal1IxmUbpo`fL=P-H6-`FD&wJ$cl8^ql$aBV}koDU0gu%TngH+ z9cY2N=4+=KdW#twgDBPRfm#hL6^xk9`rtg!y05T4WqDqfe4b+fF@xq$=9@A}kHl}p zblmbr)@tFu2vz%x_es-(a#2KG8aNRMmQmAi4}oa2{OGd>tP0lUC?sF$x~=H%*(DPt zoZgo3$Jr%H@M_@gVt|EW3zcz1717b`)wf|FDu0F%8ANr}5)#^(#K>Rpc~brBpzyMw$ZU-z72XADqb@ zz@V{5DFg`d{^Fz436qKl3q`1MrYC2yr`dBR-ibaLO^NwD#m^s0q`!0Smc zF|&vM*IH3t|M~)jYE6d_sD*gzG599;uL^uc-jD3ja`OQEiqMeGU-xfSP-`;&uUVxr z{;{76r|XpUE?Xm&%X(GJof#9u~6 zXReokMUD|)HfYGHM|CU6Vr7V>h2G|KMTie#gBiPuJw%#?eEqp~ndNr@Y%wY+&+J^= zK^;DrI^PKd3)#C-dH6eUR7;Mu^$7W#p1FT?n9%@YP+jrxf9UM1P3ssA`5{(Q^u-}^ zqve8Tj(up|L&`Iyu`zM4F-CEReIoi@bH1F7?9b}R-Lq;Nh3l=q6+clu_7&)WIwta^%|IMY%; z4bUFE(RQ{hQrlgKnNA-@g@q5g#A=_PQ+dE^;AEU-?*4JGSRYxxv1)Fj88o7(Tkdh| z0pY>}jUx-!64BWf>TCF#%4&>*yS2F|cc)A(dQk1IG~olHvsLjgg?9rNCd+w+DP)5O zN_#izi_29?SE#k0T~q+Jt~UR@sn|kH_0S;6+A65;0C!##hkdoYDs=bZ(h7 z6cwhm-mh_QMSzDcWP2tlpaxE#aBhg*w_Ck5GBK!(ZR{}k`VWme3B_rAsgrD+vGamx z@n{$>iv)`?>#cP&RuAgV)8T@Fu#~d%)QnDg7N*b2Iv6!C_us#)s)^Fc`kHc{m5hAH z3mPotcnn$7#h>L7C8z%r&q|zd*%@$D%5p#%^wskOU<=XK1A%#kg#JS(5Ot?M37o;p zKfs`7;OMI8Q);h&@$|CW#kjI`4@?7C1_*EFV z_Or3;Q03lgR!P~r_|MasGC#Tu?WTj|f6JMZa_0$2wTBq{Tux{w9@=_UwCy;%De+|V z#LqHMo+;irti4|-`>-RVXmt?W&YGKc;bN9D`a2^(XGuIRyXG&WheFotg>+o&P5Hy* zq{c;M$hRX!aS|ppNdyO1W`N|ob#5ppI6opY^HExv^;Wi+|53v7O}r#t240!_@W2f) zR+k}@2Ky$HijqYeN8KV`;unc!p-CtMReQ2Oh0|`r{+L!Gx+i8|rWJN1dOUhA!hNq# zVu(_^p2|#OgF5C7=9QACy%w$SD4oA+F3DyVH0!Qjym%Xc(a-BKsh~AnWTzWU8PMM@sue zs_m7Qkj;XYkTm=2b7l3H^8rrA=})RezGUC&zRAaYCMcKeYT+$9$s!v&ttsJJB;HPyPyHpw1zP*FhU;xIewW z#ds4AGHj+FCa?|tcI#av1{aN>&O%piS7^71!-?bK!DZ1TbK{s*qOSrGMyY(gisOrG zqDd9IQep(`W!E1Uy1NFH(CxctSrF^{YclMtLO1Bw1ydbV4yZIri|l!39q!E-QSf=e zr}%q#y`pwnaVd$6SVl~a_`~?nf(R51oEyUgJSn!v_k31W^%IPwzX_i)yWeLRB(_nU z6JNHg7k_gfV<6qjUx|q#j3iMX2-6nb#{*=KAybgV;gYR_NttIN zbCRN6e>I^fko_P|aCNx zNE8mkIV}V3xxlm^qE-C}4-m!`@aZ%tpjEtJYV2(HE=19-a_^*QrPo<(>_{|Pcj$3t zdPUJUHcMyk`={2=VMHrUE2k>~zFnZg@0ZDT{WRSqroN4(6ywRmwy!7fGZD&6Q9&uk zOeHoMm0TltHIf1&&Y1)AE$O$tDqmt1VYGhw43Er9QZ;G&tW&6vh6 z=1*gdub9!`9?JB+5|v^2xS_BA^<#UG0ISmR5{!R$u_B(BCFEzX6*Cmyd(Wt>b?Crf zfE^b4C7aw%NrO$qA%#UG#c2=1xEje=QeQ)XtVt)vVueHj?OO>J=o%R}^Y!)4@17FR zSQ-7j%_5#SD9NTq0m$9~7mswxiiK_Lt?)gc2G0K|E>r0aHC!!=bu;J@&WP^IP$vPg z3bG|00M+!*K5DEi{P4NL?8=i&y6~@e?9tPZPT&^^_9I$afBk#;9e%pA;LoEN6X7hF zvyt3UdX+Eo%6-|4815@V0PIdz#yk*r)3TlvFU96@RZ`Rsio#m~1J0ziw%G`z#M6~Z zC54X7uq#5Jg^M!B$3rzF5N8w1$7U{&g<{5ao~&PXjHu<(z|Lb#?r-tzzr(|yrVeSY zDhXE>+zZ0v!%u*5q{eSDKORsz{dSENm<+G&pVF6)maTuZ3sE0l+G{*MC!dVoNbuz1 z{160kP}8j}>LxP*A1SK}Pmq52mF$}Un(fVO34oCI6S{qg5XIcov%_%d$erS>sQ#H` zqQFI7O6b;VeY-p9lW5rWC%NJMA&ZsgBdB?kb*PkVowguP$oQOLb#{Iv*>;@2!}^bB z(z%6dRBn_rE9gYCP5Id4Zx8Oa(HFLkWe2-X+Wp)XrG*AxaLt_eSL14L@>AoF&pZ?a zqWC(Mv{(cJZ&Xq9zZi2ar#`>jkr!yuA$F=)v_TXp*@I!|@7^K7)|@*hsa~v=O5$7NGaVa_sc5<_yGu z;LR%Uasw_M*=FhQ&l0VLCxa9B%C{L(L-YB85b@=S6Ty&Acq~DOYY4O|%2< zforO8aF3m)b9wJk0C#5r_Dy(?%WQEyNLZS|sp5A=y<^-`38R%!+~3M@v3VKQz&@80 zmKD+RM_bsrkMU=AmIN7Ex(g>MJQy3iW`Ax@%5||X!Ir&jS!8|P%RlHY=nFZ9s+EaZ z(Xv~PL9NPJt_`e2f`Gi1hE2)EJ&ETYzxK8f>@+`B+n^aIE2p1VRnn$0cuEkWS2bq@ zV7I*f)OTz5*~x2q$1l*tRf@J^oX&1Yrn(d9L6D9kGu|}=%%c0ak`T;CK{g>4Wt{+3 zkDBzW>kklPvcC~-$F$af>*CCDpfEZSY6^7K$^66_*@quUz^W|{je6?K3_y%()dGfd^E34FMoWGJkf2iz?qU?9E6SK@N|8izsh;!s82UeV!Asay`YIMw0Z2bugBnIAL2g^rX%wA6x$&vQV~p%>3QFAHuqu_cOq`fqc~kc;HWb zY%?AG0crDISVW2Sar1XNPRJBrt2&?@+ggxFv>l@yrbMLN`$IPZPlsOD3m*7Pm1x_CYzoL zh9`lDnL2|k&(9=*&W%KG>L&qCEEz{cmNp^Y7mE9Vm>GiIR1;soN6p%2Fr|ZiN{d0$ ztjGpc?GNR_ND=v=_66q*3hZ4hmX@VJlJi6>Zk<5DhU=Hurw$P8b`0S&MtqZG`$AG1_&R*V8mVlubV!t=1QH*-Z)d}eB&aAXXipUsO1<)V({yLbkzVZM zCI^fHE3nEq-JDUaPs9}EP#}Fcp`kcB01QIOpg;yIYX@29NnL|4nW$w18=T8Bp{Tb+ zzohXUVt$6!(`$W^5CwvpU11FC(zDOG=*1;b61p^B&2@}6yqXhTvg6QVIH<_fVl5G+ zus6_n9O|-*jnajA606Y&U_=%-l2}Jjj#_IL*?Ig5OLVP=?TP5dt$nh`T6i$vgNRUx z-$#p;-r^DI)0?)x(`wV7L_$2cvkCKku3@EY-g<%w@s1bTnU0F?@8p~A z0~mv3x8OtY>TU?`+;;oZdM_IY1o;)kW4XMR=1jH_eRGA$quY*9st|aKQr~c<+HPsQ z>B{zbS9mN~_A}&-!jdrPpukbtD%N4yI~( z*iHbSqa06O5|qIU(`q;)!~M@E3v}uRz9J+h1m2@#{1La)BT?!&FO^L+;J%;WWcKGE zBSQsd8{Y8wK#{`zG>)m=O~mX&`VAWwt}c%`(Jpw6JFq`RfwToX-!V5uFY~5X=0c4HK%znVJ&3iH(wOSh4^<^AC$=iF@ z|C_|~nNX+Q&^G>WMRDJPz!zfXRUOGz360rX%mghl&sk~Ij7gl97{`hN`+L4q{96jLk*lt+=nBJ3- z3T|*5^VNrG(VRxrms*=R#kxtt{I`CU<14){J8rMfSHQ|%=7OU`I8nrPzjc~iP1;cK zJ4fIesf9|=Qr}6XzNzyP$uk?k*v@5{qd9Ka=NmXf!2CypDn+*nMd#aqi$Ys_K#mU} z#DjG(t7AAx_DvU>_+30D+M#T~gC&=`&BK_HsDNI+d6$Urr$2iM3C~3NHMlY%mhU^= zLDk=SN$u(hvIOX0A!}TH^vk1j*bQ{gW(m|=&7kbmvNFN^<}3p62G(J5(B1_-zOTwb z9S2yABlnF3g%_-*5N97$fRo>~r3GKM^XZ>{NCaFNirWNlqL>Fou~TC2a|}nY@A{b; zeF||rsS~7qy1uwwu&hY}%hZl6(1t%%(1vf3X8y+0KSu4@j{niPv=h5caT{BY+(W3p ze~m7A;Vrey_DR1s7Bgr4Y%1eu+DuGbxK^OWj!WmW;+f37He$odeel&zhBwUxDNotes - + -Feb 19, 2025 +Feb 20, 2025 Methodology notes diff --git a/notes/methodology-notes.html b/notes/methodology-notes.html index 3ea28bf..e5ddcdd 100644 --- a/notes/methodology-notes.html +++ b/notes/methodology-notes.html @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ - +
@@ -247,7 +247,7 @@
-
+
@@ -349,7 +346,7 @@

Methodology notes

Modified
-

February 19, 2025

+

February 20, 2025

@@ -398,19 +395,19 @@

Methodology notes

- protocol - --> -
-

Significant Concepts and Frameworks

-
-

Multicase Studies

+
+

Significant Concepts and Frameworks

+
+

Multicase Studies

These notes describe the features, affordances and limitations of case study research, and articules factors correspoding with variable kinds of case studies.

I 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).

-
-

Stake’s Approach

+
+

Stake’s Approach

In 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).

Cases 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.

Moreover, 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).

Stake (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.

-

1 The term refers to a medieval jousting target: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintain_(jousting)

According to Stake (2006: 6):

+

According to Stake (2006: 6):

Multicase 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.

@@ -429,14 +426,14 @@

Stake’s Approach

  • Do the cases provide diversity across contexts?
  • Do the cases provide good opportunities to learn about complexity and contexts?
    • -
    +

    For 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

    -

    2 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.

    +

    Stake’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.

    -
    -

    Yin’s Approach

    -

    According 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.”

    +
    +

    Yin’s Approach

    +

    According 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.”

    He 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)

    Yin (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.

    Yin (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)

    @@ -454,11 +451,11 @@

    Yin’s Approach

    In 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.

    Regarding 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.

    -
    -

    Logistics of case study design

    -
    -
    Preparing to select case study data
    -

    Yin (2014: 72-73) identifies five desired attributes for collecting case studt data:

    +
    +

    Logistics of case study design

    +
    +

    Preparing to select case study data

    +

    Yin (2014: 72-73) identifies five desired attributes for collecting case study data:

    1. Ask good questions — and interpret answers fairly.
    @@ -500,8 +497,8 @@
    Prepar
  • Guide for the case study report
    • -
    -
    Triangulation
    +
    +

    Triangulation

    Triangulation is a process of gaining assurance. Also sometimes called crystallization.

    “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)

    What needs triangulation? (Stake 2006: 35-36)

    @@ -526,8 +523,8 @@
    Triangulation
    -
    -
    Cross-Case Analysis Procedure
    +
    +

    Cross-Case Analysis Procedure

    Stake (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):

    • Track 1: Maintains the case findings and the situationality.
      • @@ -537,8 +534,8 @@
      Cross-Case A

      According 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.

      There 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.

    -
    -
    Single cases
    +
    +

    Single cases

    Stake (2000) is concerned with identifying what can be learned from a single case. He (2000: 437) identifies three kinds of cases:

    • Intrinsic case studies as being driven by a desire to understand the particular case.
      • @@ -547,8 +544,8 @@
      Single cases

    Stake (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).

    -
    -
    Some scattered practical guidance
    +
    +

    Some scattered practical guidance

    Stake (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.

    Stake (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.

    On page 34, Stake (2006) also provides some practical tips for documenting and storing data, after Huberman and Miles (1994).

    @@ -557,8 +554,8 @@
    Some sca
    -
    -

    Grounded theory

    +
    +

    Grounded theory

    These 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.

    According to Charmaz(2000: 509):

    @@ -570,23 +567,23 @@

    Grounded theory

    Prior 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)

    Glaser 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.

    -
    -

    Glaser

    +
    +

    Glaser

    Glaser’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:

    Theoretical 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.

    -
    -

    Corbin and Strauss

    +
    +

    Corbin and Strauss

    Strauss 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.

    -

    3 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)

    +

    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)

    Strauss apparently became more insistent that grounded theory should be more verificational in nature in personal communications.

    Glaser (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.

    Charmaz 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).

    -
    -

    Constuctivist Grounded Theory

    +
    +

    Constuctivist Grounded Theory

    Constructivist 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)

    @@ -594,7 +591,7 @@

    Constuctivis

    The 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)

    Three aspects to Charmaz’s argument (510):4

    -

    4 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.

      +
      1. Grounded theory strategies need not be rigid or prescriptive;
      2. a focus on meaning while using grounded theory furthers, rather than limits, interpretive understanding; and
      3. we can adopt grounded theory strategies without embracing the positivist leanings of earlier proponents of grounded theory.
        4. @@ -635,8 +632,8 @@

        Constuctivis

        Guidelines 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.

        -
        -
        On the modes of reasoning behind grounded theory
        +
        +

        On the modes of reasoning behind grounded theory

        Kelle (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.

        Highlights 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”.

        A common thread in this paper is sensitivity to the practical challenges of actually doing grounded theory according to Glaser’s approach:

        @@ -667,13 +664,13 @@
        -
        Rebuttals by Glaser
        +
        +

        Rebuttals by Glaser

        Glaser (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.

        This 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).

        -
        -
        On the utility of grounded theory
        +
        +

        On the utility of grounded theory

        I completely agree with this statement from Clarke (2003: 555):

        To 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.

        @@ -686,8 +683,8 @@
        On the <
        -
        -

        Theoretical sampling

        +
        +

        Theoretical sampling

        See Charmaz (2000): 519-520.

        From Clarke (2003: 557):

        @@ -695,18 +692,18 @@

        Theoretical sampling<

        -
        -

        Data Collection

        -
        -

        Interviews

        +
        +

        Data Collection

        +
        +

        Interviews

        See (Yin 2014: 110-113) See Becker (1998)

        From Charmaz (2000: 525):

        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.

        Fontana 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.

        -
        -

        Structured interviewing

        +
        +

        Structured interviewing

        From Fontana and Frey (2000: 649-651):

        Interviewers ask respondents a series of preestablished questions with a limited set of response categories. The interview records responses according to a preestablished coding scheme.

        Instructions to interviewers often follow these guidelines:

        @@ -724,37 +721,37 @@

        Structured intervi

        This kind of interview often elicits rational responses, but it overlooks or inadequately assesses the emotional dimension.

        -
        -

        Group interviews

        +
        +

        Group interviews

        From Fontana and Frey (2000: 651-652):

        Can 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.

        Can be used to aid respondents’ recall of specific events or to stimulate embellished descriptions of events, or experiences shared by members of a group.

        In formal group interviews, participants share views through the coordinator.

        Less 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”.

        -
        -

        Unstructured interviewing

        +
        +

        Unstructured interviewing

        From Fontana and Frey (2000: 652-657):

        The essence of an unstructured interview is establishing a human-to-human relation with the respondent and a desire to understand rather than to explain.

        Fontana 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.

        -
        -

        “New” takes on interviewing

        +
        +

        Postmodern takes on interviewing

        Fontana 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.

        However, 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.

        -
        -

        Transcribing

        +
        +

        Transcribing

        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.

        -
        -
        Transcript notation
        +
        +

        Transcript notation

        Derived from the transcription protocol applied for the E-CURATORS project.

        -
        -
        Cleaning audio
        +
        +

        Cleaning audio

        To clean the audio:

          -
        1. I select a clip that is representative of a single source of background noise, and then filter that wavelength throughout the entire audio file.
          2. +
        2. Select a clip that is representative of a single source of background noise, and then filter that wavelength throughout the entire audio file.
        3. After selecting the clip, go to Effect >> Noise Reduction and select Get Noise Profile, then press OK.
        4. Close the noise reduction menu, select the entire range of audio using the keyboard shortcut Command + A.
        5. Then go back to the noise reduction window (Effect >> Noise Reduction) to apply the filter based on the noise profile identified for the noisy clip.
          6. @@ -765,12 +762,12 @@
          Cleaning audio
        -
        -

        Field notes

        +
        +

        Field notes

        See (Yin 2014: 124-125)

        -
        -

        Focus groups

        +
        +

        Focus groups

        From Kitzinger (1994); Wilkinson (1998); Parker and Tritter (2006); Morgan and Hoffman (2018).

        Crucially, 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).

        @@ -872,11 +869,11 @@

        Focus groups

        Morgan and Hoffman (2018)

        -
        -

        QDA

        +
        +

        Analysis

        My 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.

        -
        -

        Sensitizing concepts

        +
        +

        Sensitizing concepts

        According to Bowen (2006: 13-14), (Blumer 1954, 1969) first established the term “senstizing concepts” to differentiate them with “definitive concepts”.

        According to Blumer (1954: 7):

        @@ -896,13 +893,13 @@

        Sensitizing concepts<

        Thus, sensitizing concepts may guide but do not command inquiry, much less commandeer it (Charmaz, 2008e). Treat these concepts as points of departure for studying the empirical world while retaining the openness for exploring it. In short, sensitizing concepts can provide a place to start inquiry, not to end it.

        Bowen (2006: 15) indicates that sensitizing concepts may emerge from reading the prior literature. In the example he provides, he treated them as variables against which he would read the text, and they thereby combined to served as an analytical frame, or a point of reference and guide in data analysis.5

        -

        5 This seems reminiscient of procedures planned for WP1 and WP2 from my FWO grant application.

        6 This is also very reminiscient of Nicolini (2009).

        Patton (2015) quotes Denzin (denzin1978? 9), who he claims captured the essence of how sensitizing concepts guide fieldwork:6

        +

        Patton (2014) quotes Denzin (1978: 9), who he claims captured the essence of how sensitizing concepts guide fieldwork:6

        The observer moves from sensitizing concepts to the immediate world of social experience and permits that world to shape and modify his conceptual framework. In this way he moves continually between the realm of more general social theory and the worlds of native people. Such an approach recognizes that social phenomena, while displaying regularities, vary by time, space, and circumstance. The observer, then, looks for repeatable regularities. He uses ritual patterns of dress and body-spacing as indicators of self-image. He takes special languages, codes and dialects as indicators of group boundaries. He studies his subject’s prized social objects as indicators of prestige, dignity and esteem hierarchies. He studies moments of interrogation and derogation as indicators of socialization strategies. He attempts to enter his subject’s closed world of interaction so as to examine the character of private versus public acts and attitudes.

        -
        -

        Coding

        +
        +

        Coding

        These notes are largely derived from my reading of Saldaña (2016), provides a practical overview of what coding entails and specific methods and techniques.

        Coding as component of knowledge construction:

          @@ -919,8 +916,8 @@

          Coding

      4. Categories are arranged into themes or concepts, which in turn lead to assertions or theories
        5. -
        -

        Pre-coding techniques

        +
        +

        Pre-coding techniques

        Saldaña (2016) identifies several techniques for formatting the data to make them easier to code, but also to imbue meaning in the text.

        • Data layout @@ -944,7 +941,7 @@

          Pre-coding technique
        • 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

        -

        Following Emerson et al. (2011: 177), Saldaña (saldana2016:22?) identifies a few key questions to keep in mind while coding:

        +

        Following Emerson et al. (2011: 177), Saldaña (2016: 22) identifies a few key questions to keep in mind while coding:

        • What are people doing? What are they trying to accomplish?
        • How, exactly, do they do this? What specific means and/or strategies do they use?
          • @@ -975,16 +972,25 @@

          Pre-coding technique

        -
        -

        Memos

        +
        +

        Memos

        Charmaz (2014: 162) dedicates Chapter 7 to memo-writing, which she frames as “the pivotal intermediate step between data collection and writing drafts of papers.” She locates the power of memo-writing as the prompt to analyze the data and codes early in the research process, which requires the researcher to pause and reflect.

        -

        Charmaz (2014: 162): > Memos catch your thoughts, capture the comparisons and connections you make, and crystallize questions and directions for you to pursue.

        -

        Charmaz (2014: 162): > Memo-writing creates an interactive space for conversing with yourself about your data, codes, ideas, and hunches. > Questions arise. > New ideas occur to you during the act of writing. > Your standpoints and assumptions can become visible. > You will make discoveries about your data, emerging categories, the developing frame of your analysis — and perhaps about yourself.

        +

        Charmaz (2014: 162):

        +
        +

        Memos catch your thoughts, capture the comparisons and connections you make, and crystallize questions and directions for you to pursue.

        +
        +

        Charmaz (2014: 162):

        +
        +

        Memo-writing creates an interactive space for conversing with yourself about your data, codes, ideas, and hunches. Questions arise. New ideas occur to you during the act of writing. Your standpoints and assumptions can become visible. You will make discoveries about your data, emerging categories, the developing frame of your analysis — and perhaps about yourself.

        +

        Charmaz (2014: 164):

        Memo-writing encourages you to stop, focus, take your codes and data apart, compare them, and define links between them. Stop and catch meanings and actions. Get them down on paper and into your computer files.

        -

        Charmaz (2014: 164): > Memos are your path to theory constriction. > They chronicle what you grappled with and learned along the way.

        +

        Charmaz (2014: 164):

        +
        +

        Memos are your path to theory constriction. They chronicle what you grappled with and learned along the way.

        +

        Charmaz (2014: 165-168) distinguishes between memo-writing and journaling. The former is meant to be more analytical, whereas the latter is more of an account of a direct experience, including significant memories or recollections of moments that stood out (and reflection on why they stood out).

        Charmaz (2014: 171) indicates that “[n]o single mechanical procedure defines a useful memo. Do what is possible with the material you have.” She then lists a few possible approaches to memo-writing:

          @@ -1015,10 +1021,8 @@

          Memos

          Other analogies include that by Stern (2007: 119): If data are the building blocks of the developing theory, memos are the mortar”, and by Birks and Mills (2015: 40) who consider memos as the “lubricant” of the analytic machine, and “a series of snapshots that chronicle your study experience”.

          See Montgomery and Bailey (2007) and McGrath (2021) for more on the distinction between memos and field notes, including detailed examples of these kinds of writing in action.

        -
        -

        Analysis

        -
        -

        Preliminary analyses

        +
        +

        Preliminary analyses

        Yin (2014: 135-136 5) identifies various strategies for analyzing case study evidence.

        A helpful starting point is to “play” with your data. You are searching for patterns, insights, or concepts that seem promising. (Yin 2014: 135)

        @@ -1033,32 +1037,16 @@

        Preliminary analyses<

        Yin (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.

        -
        -

        Analytical strategies and techniques

        -

        Yin (2014: 136-142) then goes on to describe four general strategies:

        -
          -
        1. Relying on theoretical propositions
          2. -
        2. Working your data from the “ground up”
          3. -
        3. Developing a case description
          4. -
        4. Examining plausible rival explanations
          5. -
        -

        Yin (2014: 142-168) then goes on to describe five analytical techniques:7

        -

        7 I wonder: would Abbott (2004) call these heuristics?

          -
        1. Pattern matching
          2. -
        2. Explanation building
          3. -
        3. Time-series analysis
          4. -
        4. Logic models
          5. -
        5. Cross-case synthesis
          6. -
        -

        Ryan and Bernard (2000) describe various analysis techniques for analyzing textual elicitations in structured and codified ways.

        -
        -
        -

        The constant comparative method

        -

        The constant comparative method is based on action codes, similar to what Saldaña (2016) refers to as process codes. According to Charmaz (2000: 515): > 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.

        +
        +

        The constant comparative method

        +

        The constant comparative method is based on action codes, similar to what Saldaña (2016) refers to as process codes. According to Charmaz (2000: 515):

        +
        +

        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.

        +

        My 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.

        -
        -

        Situational analysis

        +
        +

        Situational analysis

        Situational analysis originates from Strauss’s social worlds/arenas/negotiations framework. From Clarke (2003: 554):

        Building on and extending Strauss’s work, situational analyses offer three main cartographic approaches:

        @@ -1099,19 +1087,37 @@

        Situational analysis<

        Clarke (2003) refers to Shim (2000) as an exemplary case of situational analysis in action.

        +
        +

        Various other analytical strategies and techniques

        +

        Yin (2014: 136-142) describes four general analytical strategies:

        +
          +
        1. Relying on theoretical propositions
          2. +
        2. Working your data from the “ground up”
          3. +
        3. Developing a case description
          4. +
        4. Examining plausible rival explanations
          5. +
        +

        Yin (2014: 142-168) then goes on to describe five analytical techniques:7

        +
          +
        1. Pattern matching
          2. +
        2. Explanation building
          3. +
        3. Time-series analysis
          4. +
        4. Logic models
          5. +
        5. Cross-case synthesis
          6. +
        +

        Ryan and Bernard (2000) describe various analysis techniques for analyzing textual elicitations in structured and codified ways.

        -
        -

        QDA software and tooling

        +
        +

        QDA software and tooling

        Weitzman (2000) provides an overview of software and qualitative research, including a minihistory up to the year 2000 when the chapter was published.

        Describing the first programs specifically designed for analysis of qualitative data, Weitzman (2000: 804) writes:

        -
        +

        Early 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.8 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.

        -

        8 This caught my eye since its the same approach as that adopted by qc!

        +

        This 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).

        -
        -

        Writing

        +
        +

        Writing

        Richardson (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:

    +

    Footnotes

    + +
      +

    1. The term refers to a medieval jousting target: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintain_(jousting)↩︎

      2. +

    2. 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.↩︎

      3. +

    3. 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.↩︎

      4. +

    4. 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.↩︎

      5. +

    5. This seems reminiscient of procedures planned for WP1 and WP2 from my FWO grant application.↩︎

      6. +

    6. This is also very reminiscient of Nicolini (2009).↩︎

      7. +

    7. I wonder: would Abbott (2004) call these heuristics?↩︎

      8. +

    8. This caught my eye since its the same approach as that adopted by qc!↩︎

      9. +
    +