Hi everyone! As we are getting into more specific division of labor with the report drafting, I thought I would use @alberto 's “homework” term to start a thread to keep it all consolidated, as we all work towards a full draft.
My vision is to work our way through the TOC that @Jan and I put together. The next thing I would like to ask of you is initial “building blocks” for your first respective thematic sections.
For Poland (@Maniamana ): “self-reliance vs community”.
Mania, can you please write up the following:
operationalize the terms “self-reliance” and “community” in this ethnographic context. What do they mean in the Polish contexts? Are these etic concepts emergent out of the data, emic concepts articulated by the interviewees, or both? Are there etic dimensions to both of these terms that go beyond how the native informants are using them? (300-400 words)
What are the tensions between self-reliance and community for your informants? (300-400 words)
Can you please include 6-8 quotes illustrating this tension from your interviews (with a brief overview of the biographical information about the informant, and, if relevant for comprehension, the context of that juncture in the interview).
What historical context is important for us to understand that tension? (a paragraph or two / 500 words)
What is the literature by scholars (including Polish scholars) that is relevant for framing the discussion of this section? (It would be great to have a mini annotated bibliography here)
For the Czech Republic (@jitka.kralova ): “disillusionment and politics”
Jitka, can you please write up the following:
operationalize the term “disillusionment” in this ethnographic context. What does it mean in the Czech contexts? Is this an etic concept emergent out of the data, emic concept articulated by the interviewees, or both? Are there etic dimensions to this term that go beyond how the native informants are using it? (300-400 words)
What is the relationship between disillusionment and politics for your informants? In your initial insights report, you mention disillusionment with “formal” politics and representation. Is there a conceptual bifurcation between formal/informal or existing/aspirational politics? (300-400 words)
Can you please include 6-8 quotes illustrating this from your interviews (with a brief overview of the biographical information about the informant, and, if relevant for comprehension, the context of that juncture in the interview).
What historical context is important for us to understand this disillusionment? (a paragraph or two/500 words)
What is the literature by scholars (including Czech scholars) that is relevant for framing the discussion of this section? (It would be great to have a mini annotated bibliography here)
For Germany (@Richard@Djan ): “anger at elites”
Richard and Djan, can you please write up the following:
operationalize the terms “anger” and “elites” in this ethnographic context. Are we talking about anger as an affect, rhetoric, etc? What/who are the “elites” (and who is the arbiter of that)? In your insights report you mention government and management as “elites” linked with anger, and then scientific “elites” as linked with distrust. I would like to understand better where anger is sitting among other emotions and affects, and how fixed or fluid the category of “elites” is. Are “elites” an etic concept emergent out of the data, emic concept articulated by the interviewees, or both? Is there an etic dimension to “elites” that goes beyond how the native informants are using them? (300-400 words)
What are the dynamics of the anger at elites? Is it static, evolving, iterative, mitigated, broadly directed, etc.? (300-400 words)
Can you please include 6-8 quotes illustrating this tension from your interviews (with a brief overview of the biographical information about the informant, and, if relevant for comprehension, the context of that juncture in the interview). (a paragraph or two)
What historical context is important for us to understand that dynamic? (a paragraph or two / 500 words)
What is the literature by scholars (including German scholars) that is relevant for framing the discussion of this section? (It would be great to have a mini annotated bibliography here)
Thank you all! It would be great if we could discuss this “homework” at the meeting on Friday, and if you could aim to write this up by the end of next week – please let me know if the timeline on that is overly optimistic.
Thanks for the roadmap, @Nica! On 2 July I am moving to Berlin for the summer and I have lots of bits and pieces to wrap up before I leave, so I’ll need a bit more time to do the write-up.
Also, I’ll be flying to Helsinki on Friday, so will have to miss this week’s Friday meeting. @Djan, can you attend to represent Team Deutschland?
HOMEWORK ITEM: national surveys/resources on “trust” – @Jan can you please add the specifics as to what we want (what year ranges for surveys, how many, ideally, etc.)
For any resources related to “trust” there is now a dedicated Google Drive folder in our project drive – please upload articles/relevant files, and put references/links into the document titled “trust” – it’s basically our scrapbook for the time being.
@rebelethno – Jan and I met today and we aim to have comments for the Czech and German ethnographic sections of the master draft by then – with the hope/aspiration for the ethnographers to take a look at them on Thursday, so we can chat about them on Friday.
Looking forward to getting your feedback! On Friday, I’ll be starting the drive back from Berlin to London, so won’t be able to attend the Friday meeting.
Hi @Nica
Thanks for letting us know. I also won’t be able to attend the meeting this Friday unfortunately. Maybe we could schedule a separate meeting just to go through the comments?
Hi all, update as of Thursday morning (on the American side). @Jan and I went through the draft. I left comment on the Czech and German sections. Jan has left comments on the Czech section. @jitka.kralova – if you are not there tomorrow, then yes it probably makes sense for the three of us to have a meeting once you have had a chance to read through the comments. @Richard – safe driving, you and @Djan can take a look at my comments for now, and @Jan will be adding his ASAP.
Hi Jitka! Apologies for the delay. I was working on a draft for another project that was due yesterday. Will you be at the ethnographers meeting tomorrow? Maybe you and myself and @Jan can stay after the meeting is done to discuss the comments? @Jan are you available for that?
@rebelethno – today at the Ethnographers’ meeting we discussed that we (Jan and I) want to meet with each of the country ethnographic teams separately to do a deep dive into the visualizations in a dynamic way.
The only issue is, we are not confident in being able to easily and efficiently “drive” the software. We’ve all been trained on it, but when we did it earlier for the Catholic church, we were slow and not very efficient until @alberto kindly walked us through it. Since we are in a time crunch with all this, I thought it would be efficient if for each of these three meetings there could be someone present who can “supervise” our technological shortcomings. Could be @alberto if he is available. I got the sense that @Wojt and @Jirka_Kocian might be able to do it? That would take care of the Polish and Czech meetings, and we would ask for someone’s help with the German one.
Once I have a clear sense of who the “software wizard” can be for each of the three meetings, I will schedule them, with Doodle Poll.
Hello @nica and all, I am on holiday until the 4th of October, included. So, I would prefer not to stand in any meeting. However, I have prepared some walkthroughs:
I would recommend to ask @hugi to repeat the training, it may be a good investment. With it, you can replicate the gist of the analysis in the first two posts above, and extend them at will (for example, explore ego networks, etc.). I write “the gist” because the way Graphryder computes association depth is slightly different from (though highly correlated with) the one in the paper definition that I use when I work with Tulip.
The analysis by gender is bespoke analysis done for POPREBEL, and not supported by Graphryder.
I would also recommend you provide me with requests for visualizations, or data-related questions, and I will take them on at the earliest opportunity. I will probably still generate a draft comparative analysis between the three different corpora, though comparing three is much harder than comparing two. And about that: @Jan, @Richard, @SantosCardonaPR, can I now consider the coding of the German corpus complete?