Alright.
Regarding Polish vis and 5 pillars - what I requested stands, hence my previous post asking for updated visualizations is still valid;)
In addition, could I please have those visualizations:
Retraditionalisation
The entire network at the level of reduction 13.
Dual go networks for invoking history + POLculid, level of reduction 4. Visualized so nodes in common are in the middle, in between the ego nodes, and the rest of the nodes are spread outside and clearly visible.
Trust/distrust
LAinadequate + distrust + DDeliteestrangmenet + HSaccess
One ego networks comparison, reduction level 3, with nodes in common in the center
All these edges are underwritten by the interviews of at least 4 informants, and up to 21. Remember orange edges signify associations made by mostly female informants; green onles, by mostly male ones.
distrust was not used as all in this corpus. You have mistrust (above I suggested that these two might be worth merging). Both mistrust and alienation have only edges of depth 1, so they are dropped by even the mildest reduction. Of the other three codes, protests resists to a reduction of up to d >= 12, Eeconcor up to d >= 17, and DDpolcor up to d >= 36. This is what happens at d >= 8 (below). Edges have b between 2 and 17 (the broadest co-occurrence is between DDpolcor and Andrej Babiš).
There is no code called neocolonialism, but there is one called GLOBneocol. Hopefully it’s the one.
These codes together resist up to d >= 3. At 4, we lose anti-candidate voting. At 5, we lose GLOBneocol. At 30, DDeliteestrangement, with `SIincompetence resisting up to 45. Situation at d >0 3:
victims of post-socialist transformation only has super shallow edges (d = b = 1). At d >= 3, protest voting disappears. Ad d >= 9, civil disobedience disappears. At *d* >= 12, only protests`remains, and it disappears at 13. This is what happens at b >= 2:
The Retraditionalisation, Polarisation and Trust/Distrust visualisations are interesting; I’ll write up my interpretation of these themes over the weekend. @alberto, should I go ahead and merge mistrust and distrust?
It’s interesting how my intuitive assumption about the relationship between Anger + Emotionally Difficult + Unfair isn’t reflected in the visualisation. It acts as a useful corrective.
I have to attend an Exam Board tomorrow (Friday) at 14.00 UK, so I’ll have to miss the meeting. Please let me know if there is any additional homework.
@Richard please be sure and include that in your interpretations! That’s exactly the kind of thing that can illustrate what this mixed-methods iterative model has to offer.
@Richard did you get a chance to write up your interpretations over the weekend?
Can everyone else in @rebelethno working on reconciling ethnographic sections and visualizations please update me on where you are at and where you expect to be by Friday?
Hello Veronica. We had meeting of the Czechnography group yesterday. We have selected the graps to put in the text and started to write interpretations. @Jirka_Kocian is the main author from our side. I have not been present till the end of the meeting but I assume we will use 3 graphs to each of the parts @jitka.kralova highlighted. I also assume we might be able to finish by Friday this week.
No, this particular visualization is identical. distrust will now have a higher connectivity in the main stacked graph, but mistrust had not been used nearly as much, so the overall picture is unlikely to change much.
