Notes from October 23 Call (also in google doc form)
Outline of Related Literature
Suggestion: start with a paragraph and bullet point list saying more or less the following:
Our method is an ethnographic method.
It is social because it uses as data online conversations.
It is interested in knowledge extraction (what people think) rather than structural issues.
Next, we lay out the details of the adjacent fields and try to place our paper in relationship to each of them.
Section on ethnographic methodology and ethics (AH)
Section on digital ethnography/mixed-methods online ethnographic work (AH)
Distinguish what we do from “semantic network analysis” (GM)
- SSNs as described in this paper differ from semantic networks described in computer science literature (later to evolve into the concept of the semantic web [https://www.w3.org/TR/PR-rdf-syntax/]) in several ways. First, SSNs are meant for human consumption, and not as a system for computers to efficiently store and retrieve information. Second, and as a consequence, they are underpinned by a simple ontology, that can easily fit in human short term memory. Our chosen representation has only two types of nodes, participants to the conversation and ethnographic codes, and only three types of edges, comments (participant-to-participant), references (participant-to-code), co-occurs-with (code-to-code). By contrast, graph databases (proposed as early as 1971 [Shapiro, 1971]) can and do encode many types of relationships
Method is related but is not that
Distinguish what we are doing and how it differs from “semantic social network” as it is used
Basically co-occurrences network building from documents
They look like social networks built like social interactions between people, but they are not
- Not just fact that words happen in the same document
- Social and Semantic Coevolution in Knowledge Networks by Roth and Cointet. Analysis looks similar to what we do, but:
MAJOR difference: their data are built using NLP + a reduction of what they call "concepts" done by domain experts. So, it is not an ethnographic method.
MAJOR difference: the focus of the paper is structural, in the NetSci tradition. They don't care what scientists are actually saying in the network of co-authorship on zebrafish embryology. They are interested in figuring out how individual behavior produces network structure. Our focus is on the effectiveness of SSNA to help us interpret large-scale ethno corpora, i.e. what they actually mean. It is semantic, not structural.
Less major difference: they keep the graph as bipartite instead of projecting.
You cannot actually use this method to distill what people are trying to say-- you can only use it as a way to understand how these two dimensions (social and semantic) interact. In our work we use this kind of thing to drive conversation
Clearer about what we call “primary” and “secondary” data