MoN and some loose ends: calling qualitative researchers in OpenCare

This is mostly for @Noemi | @Amelia | @Federico_Monaco | @Rossana_Torri , @Matteo and other Cithy of Milano staff also invited, depending on your interest.

We need to confirm the division in teams for next week’s hackathon. I made a proposal here: https://edgeryders.eu/en/comment/27898#comment-27898

I have heard from Anders Munk, who is happy to go along. Also, @melancon wants to have a fourth group, which is more of a machine learning group than a networks group: this would be a rough AI-based predictor of whether a sentence is worth coding, starring some Uni Bordeaux person and Raquel from Uni Grenada.

What do you guys say?

Also, for Amelia: I hope you have recovered from last week. We are within spitting distance of a much more solid submission to INSCI (paper: https://www.overleaf.com/9499659hhprwtdnxycv#/34417968/). I did a pass early last week; we are missing your part in section 4, and a final hardening. Does it look like you can finish it before heading off to Bordeaux?

At the moment we are within the page limit (9 pages) but you will need some space to write your thing.

Yes

Can do, I will finish my part before Bordeaux.

Great

I started working on the rest of the paper, shortening the text and hardening it. So far:  abstract, sections 1 and 2, section 3 until the end of page 5.

I discovered two more missing things: two sentences on the “high level view”, and above all pictures. I would want two, the scheme for the semantic social network and the high-level code co-occurrences network.

This means more cutting (now at 8 pages, no way we can fit everything in 1 page)…

Done!

I added what I needed to add, plus did some more polishing. Pictures are inserted in LATEX code, not yet showing well but I requested help from Jason and Guy. We only need you, Amelia, to read it through, paying special attention to the \todo comments left, and to complete section 4.2.

section 4.2 done

Doing another read-through now to resolve remaining todo parts and to add any necessary sources (although I need whoever wrote the bit on foresight and democratic stakeholder dialogue to add their citation there)

See y’all soon!

Page limit!

Should be max 9 pages. :slight_smile:

including refs?

Is it 9 total or 9 of content?

Total

But it’s OK. I commented out your first paragraphs (still there if we need to bring them back) and brought back one of them in a synthetic form. I think section 4.1 is already taking care of the high-level analysis, no need to repeat it. Also, I tried to refer to codes (using the \texttt{} tool to make sure the reader knows we are looking at codes.

I am OK with this. It does not really explain your conclusions on OpenCare, but it is not meant to. All it does is give examples of how a researcher might use the SSN for synthesis (4.1) and analysis (4.2).

No space!

OK. I took a look---- I understand now that we don’t have room for the more extended example. So it looks like we stick to the very quick one about stress and the means of relieving it.

I don’t think we have the space in the paper to go into a more detailed discussion of conclusions about OpenCare itself, since the paper seems to have taken the form of a methodological summary/argument for an approach. Like you say, instead we indicate how one might go about using this for analysis.

I could add a sentence describing a very wide conclusion (In OpenCare, it [the co-occurrence network) has allowed us to theorise that people are each other’s healthcare technologies) or something along those lines---- the issue, as I see it, is that we have a series of conclusions thus far that have emerged from the complexity of the onsite interactions, illuminated by the co-occurrence graph. These were in part detailed in the prelim findings post, but they’re in other posts as we’ve been going along as well. It strikes me as better to gesture to the method of analysis rather than presenting a very small subsection of our specific analytical conclusions based upon the OC data.

On the bright side, it means that we could have an entire other paper that just details the richness of the ethnographic findings as illuminated by the co-occurrence graph. Content + methodology, but heavy on the content! Obviously this is what the ethnographic report will be, but I could also express it in journal article form and tease out a central argument.

Try it

The extra sentence would be great.

Yes, we absolutely need an output heavy on the content.

This methodological paper might also have some future development. We will discuss this in Bordeaux. For now, I ask that you let @melancon know when we are ready to re-submit to INSCI. We are way late (deadline for full papers: 2nd of June) and might be rejected even on that ground. But that can’t be helped now. We rely on Guy to make the submission during the weekend, and maybe write a nice email to che chair asking for forgiveness.

Check it out now

If you feel it works better now, I’ve read and edited the rest of the document and am satisfied so am happy to submit it.

Fieldwork not field work

Also, quick note, it’s “fieldwork”— one word. I am standardising across the document now.

Good, reducing now…

:slight_smile: