Merging Multilingual Codes

For now, this is primarily for @Jirka_Kocian and @SZdenek, but will be relevant for everyone else later.

First question — I am checking out the Czech codes and see that (if I interpret it correctly) you’ve assigned some of the newer ones both Czech and English definitions, instead of doing the slash. That’s great and what we want to keep doing in the future. It looks like you have used my English codes where we agreed the translation is the same (e.g. “mental health”). Am I right that you’ve done this, and if so did you have any issues? This is ideal and what we want to do, so that our codes interweave.

@matthias, I have a quick question on this. In the backend, I just renamed Jiri’s code “populismus/populism” into “populismus” and assigned also the English “populism”.

I have a code called “populism” that I have already assigned to the English forum. Now that I have assigned this Czech code the English translation of “populism”, will it automatically be merged with my already existing code, since they have the same name? I think the answer is no, since I just merged Jiri’s “education” with my “education” manually.

If not (and from what I see in the backend, the answer is likely no), when I merge the codes, does it matter which I choose as the primary “populism” (mine or Jirka’s)? I am keen to ensure that if I choose mine as the code to be merged into that I do not accidentally delete the Czech translation. EDIT: I tried merging the code “labour” and am worried I’ve lost annotations by doing this…

@Jirka_Kocian and @SZdenek, if you could take another pass at my codebook (like you have in the past) and link any new “related codes” you see as equivalent between our two codebooks, I can keep doing this merging. I have made some links on yours as well, so feedback on whether you think they are merge-able would be great (e.g. your “multicultural environment” and my “cosmopolitan”)

Also, I’ve split most of your codes still in slash form into English and Czech to make this easier.

(@alberto, looping you in so you can follow this if you want to).

Hello Amelia,

this is exactly what we did. As the codes were going through revisions in the sheets, these were impemented simmultaneously in the backend. That includes using overlapping names - as we discussed in this way, the “strings” will allow easy code mergeíng you are adressing in the question for Matthias. We will run another overview round aiming at finding corresponding codes as you suggest.


Fab! Great work. I have marked some in your codebook as a starting point :slight_smile:

1 Like

@Jan, @Richard – would be good for you to take note of this conversation for the future! And if you have the bandwidth at any point (wild optimism, I know!), even if you aren’t coding you can do this code review process, too (linking codes across our codebooks that you see as overlapping, or commenting on whether our codenames seem appropriate).

1 Like

@matthias, I’d also love to be able to “archive” all of the code creators that no longer work with us/won’t be assigning new codes, so the drop-down menu is more manageable.
If possible, those are:
(anu, as she doesn’t create code content? but up to you!)
meenabhatta (I don’t know who this is)

Probably not needed (unless they object):

@alberto can stay, as I still have big plans to transform him into an economist-anthropologist :stuck_out_tongue:

Thank you :slight_smile:


Hi Amelia

The revised FATIGUE Periodic Report will be submitted on Monday, so I’ll be able to come up for air a bit after that. Would you have any time next week for a quick Zoom, so I can check that I am doing any code reviews correctly?

Thanks! R

1 Like

Certainly! I can do Wednesday anytime after 1pm UK, Thursday anytime after 10am UK, or Friday anytime other than 14-16 UK.

@Jan, if you’d like to join and coordinate we can also discuss the Polish coding situation then as well? That way I can talk to both of you about code review, and @Richard can dip out early if he’d like while we continue the conversation about the Polish coding.

Of course, if this is too difficult to coordinate time-wise, we can arrange two separate meetings.

1 Like

A note on the codenames – make sure you are assigning them lowercase unless they are proper nouns, since “Politicians” will show up as a different code than “politicians” :slight_smile:

clearly so:), will revise

1 Like

I’m changing any I see at the moment, so you should mostly just be able to apply this for future :slight_smile:

Wednesday after 1 p.m. would be best for me. I’m free all afternoon.


Can you remind me where to find the link to the code books.

I also think we should have a hierarchy-making call in late June, so we can start forming some categories of analysis together @Jirka_Kocian and @SZdenek I think we will have enough codes between the two languages to structure the codebooks together for easier comparison!

What we can do is:

  1. Each try to make a page in the codebook (like you already do, so you won’t have much work to do there) categorising the codes into hierarchies
  2. Look at each others’ pre-call
  3. Discuss overlaps and possible re-orientations on the call
  4. Implement these in the ER backend, and do another big batch of merging codes accordingly (though we will keep doing this as we go, of course)
  5. Do a mini-writeup (using the SSNA as well) comparing and contrasting.

Let’s try to do this by the end of June and produce a writeup at the beginning of July! Work for you guys?



Your UCL address has permissions on both, so you should be able to access them easily.

1 Like

Sounds doable - nevertheless, what I wanted to discuss during a call, is that I am not sure about the functionality of hierarchization in the direction we are currently heading with the coding, will try though, we can discuss the outcomes when we have them:)

1 Like

Great. They don’t need to be vertical “hierarchies” as such – we can look at the SSNA to see what codes are being grouped together by the participants and go from there.

1 Like

I think I want to make a counterproposal because eventually I would like Open Ethnographer to be a generic annotation solution for Discourse forums (and there, archiving certain users is not very appropriate).

So, couldn’t we introduce a “Project:” filter instead in the Codes, Topics and Annotations sections of the software, defaulting to the Discourse tag that a user can already choose in their user settings (such as ethno-poprebel). With that filter, you’d see only the entries relevant to the current project’s codebook, and the list of authors would also automatically become more manageable in the dropdown.


Yes, project filter would be great. Totally up for this solution, I agree and think it’s preferable.

Ok, we’ll implement it that way then :slight_smile:

1 Like

Thank you!!

1 Like

Let’s say 2:30pm then, if @Jan can make it.