To pursue our effort to understand how care networks innovate. This MoN6 edition builds on past editions and more particularly on MoN4 and MoN 5 whose output is documented here.
What
We’ll be looking again at the two sides of collective intelligence: semantics and interactions.
How
We’ll be looking at data taken from the edgeryders.eu portal and gathering online exchanges around “open” care. We also plan to look at different data collected from social medias.
Who else should come
Anyone interested in doing (even learning) network analytics, on our or other (open care related) data. There’ll be a group of people from our research project, and others.
Agenda and challenges
We plan to run two tracks:
Identifying the specifics of the opencare online conversation -- as opposed to actions taken by individuals on a social media platform, where what people have in common is that they happened to be posting on platform during a certain period of time with no real social interaction.
Playing with text content of messages versus ethnographic tags: what can we learn?
A minimum viable group consists of and ethnographer, a network scientist and a problem that both are interested in.
Smaller groups are better. Especially ethnographers will be a scarce resource, so separating them could be a great idea if everyone agrees.
Ideally people can commit to a group ahead of time.
I think we are looking at three issues that we might look into.
Bringing the "social" into Social Semantic Network Analysis. The code co-occurrence network (CCN) is such a fascinating object that we spent all the time looking at it. We are not really taking advantage of the interaction element as we build our network. You can look at it as network reduction problem: we use what we know about interaction to reduce the CCN, rather than just filter for edge force as we are doing now. If we find something we think is interesting we are still in time to make this work into GItHub issues and ask @Jason_Vallet to deploy it on GraphRyder before the end of the project. I see a group with @Noemi , @Amelia and @bpinaud (Bruno, I assume you will be there!).
Comparing network-based approaches to digital etnography. If Anders does indeed show up with the full Instagram dataset, we can lay the groundwork for a comparative methodology paper. I see a group with Anders, @melancon and probably myself too.
Re-using the OpenCare CCN for a different question. @Federico_Monaco and @Ezio_Manzini are spearheading a paper on "from talk to action", with a very rich methodology (for example, Federico's own participant observation within WeMake). We talked yesterday, and he is interested in "seeing what the netwlrk says about that". This would be about extracting a subset of the OC network and exploring him: if well documented, it can be a fantastic user testing opportunity for GraphRyder. I see a group with Federico (obviously) and Jason.
If a lot of people show up, we risk spending three hours installing software. Of course we will send out links and instructions, but at the end of the day there’s always people who have not RTFM. So: can @melancon or @bpinaud find a charitable CompSci student to volunteer to be the “Tulip helpdesk”? The person would have the software and data on a USB drive, and know how to set up people with different OS so that they are good to go.
We are polishing the next version which is Tulip 5. I hope it will be released next week. Our interns or PhD students will be able to help. It is a good idea to prepare a USB drive. We will also try to set up a dedicated Wifi network for those who do not have eduroam. I will get in touch with Luce for this.
common sense is all you need, science is after all common sense, a pinch of useful dubitativity (à la Descartes) and methodology. Get on the ride for that recipe with us, we need you.
See you in (hope it will still be) sunny (and hot) Bordeaux next week.
Thanks @Alberto, very interesting setting. As for the division, seems to me that @Rossana_Torri and I fit into Group 3. Re-using the OpenCare CCN for a different question. Indeed “from talk to action” is a key issue from our point of view. Nevertheless, if you recommend splitting into different groups we are happy to do so (from my side I would provide an unskilled, naive voice to any other team).
