Heads up: the reviewers’ report for period 2 is in, and some action is required. This includes WP2:
WP2: The online community data has been subject to significant alterations during the reporting period. Emphasised effort should be addressed to methodological and data description clarity, now underdeveloped in the report. Adding interviews to an online discussion data is definitely not simply “an expansion of the material”, but changes its terms of production and usability significantly. These issues need to be clearly detailed. The preliminary findings – also the substantial ones, not just findings and actions regarding the coding scheme – should be opened and highlighted. The reporting is as it stands very technical of nature, and as this is the core data collection effort the project much relies on, it should definitely be reported in a fashion that brings forth if not yet results, but the promise for results the operations hold.
The methodology must be strengthened both in the report and in deliverables. Issues such as case selection, data collection, and methods of data analysis are underdeveloped. In many of the deliverables, the methodological discussion is currently the weak point. As this is also by far the weakest part of the general report, more emphasis on joint sharpening
of the project’s methodological approaches is recommended.
The language must be balanced throughout the report. Some of the WPs use more technical language, some WPs are detailed, while others are brief and schematic when describing the work they did.
I will liaise with @Jan on these issues.