Hi all, I am on the road today so not sure if I could connect at 17h for the biweekly, but please feel free to meet anyway and I will join if I can.
@alberto @matthias @hugi @martin @Nica @nadia @ivan
If not, we can also share updates below this post.
Hi all, I will try to make it but I can’t be there for the entire meeting (assuming it runs the full hour). My semester starts today and I teach Wednesdays at 11.40 my time, so while the semester is happening, I will be able to join on Wednesdays until 11.30 (so, 17.30 your time)
The updates on my end (aside from what the Treasure draft being submitted to partners, which you of course know since you sent ti to them!) – Jan and I are working with the ethnographers on the master draft for the Poprebel final report, we gave a first round of comments to them, and now we are meeting with them individually to go through the comments and the revisions we want. We met with Jitka last week and we are meeting with Richard this week.
Urgent request from UCL.
PO asked for more clarifications on why the activities (below per person) are useful for the project objectives. This is what we wrote:
WP2 - Alberto Cottica: additional activities for academic dissemination. He will go through the review process of one conference paper (ICQE22), writing and submitting two journal papers, one methodological and one topical on European populism.
WP2 - Hugi Asgeirsson: iterative improvement of Graphryder. Hugi will gather feedback and will discuss with users in order to improve the Graphryder dashboard, allow the functionality of switching between different metrics for the weight of the cooccurrence edges.
WP7 - Nadia El Imam: communication and dissemination - final impact conference. Nadia will re-organise the initial plan and broadening the focus towards the renewed representatives in art, civil society and media, based on discussions with the principal investigator.
@alberto what else we can say…?
Deadline: tomorrow.
Nothing. Self-explanatory. More publications => more impact. Same can be said for the other improvements we suggest. They translate quite directly into impact. Maybe I do not understand the question.
The ICQE22 paper is accepted after peer review, and the revised version was submitted earlier this week. This was actually one of the items I wanted to report on today.
The PO obviously needs more info, otherwise they won’t accept the amendment.
I found the place to work so I can connect at 17h if you want to talk about it.
Can we not simply ask what info? It’s really hard to answer vague questions.
Eranda said PO would “like to receive some reasons why those activities are useful for the project objectives”. I believe they want something like: one of the objectives of POPREBEL was to disseminate research results…therefore we will…etc.
Otherwise, we can ask to reach out to PO directly to ask what he meant, I don’t think Eranda will know more than what she wrote.
WP2 - Alberto Cottica: additional activities for academic dissemination. He will go through the review process of one conference paper (ICQE22), writing and submitting two journal papers, one methodological and one topical on European populism.
Why it is good: we have collected a very large and granular ethnographic dataset. We run the risk to underexploit it via an insufficient dissemination effort. So, we invest in bringing our results to an interdisciplinary academic audience.
WP2 - Hugi Asgeirsson: iterative improvement of Graphryder. Hugi will gather feedback and will discuss with users in order to improve the Graphryder dashboard, allow the functionality of switching between different metrics for the weight of the cooccurrence edges.
Why it is good: POPREBEL ethnographers have extensively field-tested our coding software. This resulted in many improvements to the software (UX suggestions, feature requests, etc.) based on the needs of the researchers meant to use it. This was expected, by it happened in ways that exceeded our anticipations. So, we propose doing the same thing with the network visualization software. As the project moves towards completion, and the focus shifts from ethnographic coding to data analysis, we anticipate similar reactions. With additional investments in development, we can take advantage of those suggestions to improve the software.
WP7 - Nadia El Imam: communication and dissemination - final impact conference. Nadia will re-organise the initial plan and broadening the focus towards the renewed representatives in art, civil society and media, based on discussions with the principal investigator.
Why it is good. The reasoning is similar to that of WP2, but applied to communication. Additionally, this reflects the decision to move the impact conference online to be protected from the consequences of another spike in COVID infections: online events are robust to COVID, but they do require extra care in order to attract large crowd in an era of “Zoom fatigue”.
If this does not work, I give up.
Thanks. I’ll send this.
please do, but also add “we do not understand what kind of additional information you would need in order to make a decision. Could you be any more specific?”
The other thing that I have to report: I have been working on the POPREBEL Czech and Polish data, but there were a lot of duplicate codes. Yesterday I received news that everything is clean now. I will run a check probably tomorrow.
In what period will you be unavailable this month? Don’t see it in the calendar.
14 Sept to 5 Oct. Then I am supposed to be in Sicily for the Witness residency, to the 15th. Then to Denmark for ICQE22.
Unavailable 14 Sept to 4 Oct. Working, but busy and on the road, 5-21 Oct.
Ok. I think that by 14th we can conclude D4.5. As I see on the sharepoint, there are still no comments from other partners. In the last meeting (last Thursday) Paolo gave them a week, so I’ll send a reminder today.
If they don’t comment, do we just assume they don’t have modifications to propose, and turn it in as is?
If we don’t get any comments until Monday, I’ll ask this to the coordinator.