[Wiki-research-l] Re: What's your favorite text about general research frameworks?

[Samuel Klein]

Much research lately studies current communities of X (say, Wikipedians),
as something like a finite-game within the relatively stable and
self-limiting framework set up by X once it became an institution (say, the
post-2007 framework of WP and sibling projects).

I haven't seen as much research into the infinite-game aspect: the
generation and seeding of projects with self-governing wiki nature
. Offline examples might
include large-scale short-notice events, incl. some festivals, disaster
relief, mass migration + rebuilding.

Scaling often involves building tools, but seeing the community and its
work tools through the lens of whatever tools persist,  in communities that
survive long enough to be studied, can have two levels of survivorship bias
built in.  There may be a lot of subcommunities, mindsets, and tools that
are essential to pulling off a broad collaboration, but are just a phase.
One framework is to ground observations of a surviving group by
studying the many similar efforts that fail
.

I wonder if there are good examples of Stu's approach or others applied to
the genesis of such communities. Or communities that explicitly try to seed
and propagate new projects like them, which are then studied from the
start.

//S



On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 11:28 AM Andrew Green  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I hope this is the right place to ask this question!
>
> I was wondering if folks who are doing (or are interested in) research
> about Wikipedia might like to share texts that they feel best describe
> the general research frameworks they use (or might like to use).
>
> I'd love to hear about any texts you like, regardless of format
> (textbook, paper, general reference, blog post, etc.).
>
> It seems a lot of work about Wikipedia uses approaches from
> Computational Social Science. The main references I have for that are
> [1] and [2].
>
> I'm especially interested in links between Computational Social Science
> and frameworks from more traditional social sciences and cognitive science.
>
> Many thanks in advance! :) Cheers,
> Andrew
>
> [1] Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2017) /Introduction to Computational Social
> Science. Principles and Applications. Second Edition./ Cham,
> Switzerland: Springer.
>
> [2] Melnik, R. (ed.) (2015)/Mathematical and Computational Modeling.
> With Applications in Natural and Social Sciences, Engineering, and the
> Arts/. Hoboken, U.S.A.: Wiley.
>
> --
> Andrew Green (he/him)
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>


-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list -- wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wiki-research-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wiki-research-l] Re: What's your favorite text about general research frameworks?

[Tilman Bayer]

Also consider the widely used textbook by Creswell & Creswell, "Research
Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches" (5th
Edition, ISBN 978-1506386706), as a general reference for the social
sciences with relevance to much of the research literature about Wikipedia.

It's pretty long and comprehensive (perhaps overly so for some purposes),
with e.g.
* entire chapters about how to do a literature review and on how to use
theory
* detailed checklists for various research designs (such as the two
reproduced here
, for surveys
and experiments),
* and "recipes" for writing research study proposals and papers in various
contexts.

The book emphasises the importance of identifying the particular
"philosophical worldview" guiding the choice of research approach
(qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods) and other aspects of a
particular research project. In chapter 1 (available online

for the 4th edition), Creswell & Creswell describe four such worldviews in
detail, which I personally found quite useful in keeping track of the
different beliefs and assumptions underlying research publications bout
Wikipedia from various fields:

*1. Postpositivism (aka the scientific method)*
characterized by an emphasis on causality, the reduction of ideas and
theories to research questions and testable hypotheses, etc.
"The postpositivist assumptions have represented the traditional form of
research, and these assumptions hold
true more for quantitative research than qualitative research. This
worldview is sometimes called the scientific
method, or doing science research. It is also called
positivist/postpositivist research, empirical science, and
postpositivism."

*2. (Social) Constructivism*
"typically seen as an approach to qualitative research" (such as
ethnography or case studies), emphasizing the social construction of meaning
"The goal of the research is to rely as much as possible on the
participants’ views of the situation being studied", with subjective
meanings "formed through interaction with others (hence social
constructivism) and through historical and cultural norms that operate in
individuals’ lives."

*3. "The Transformative Worldview"*
"This position arose during the 1980s and 1990s from individuals who felt
that the postpositivist assumptions  imposed structural laws and theories
that did not fit marginalized individuals in our society or issues of power
and social justice, discrimination, and oppression that needed to be
addressed. There is no uniform body of literature characterizing this
worldview, but it includes groups of researchers that are critical
theorists; participatory action researchers; Marxists; feminists; racial
and ethnic minorities; persons with disabilities; indigenous and
postcolonial peoples; and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transsexual, and queer communities. [...] these inquirers felt that the
constructivist stance did not go far enough in advocating for an
action agenda to help marginalized peoples."
"Transformative research uses a program theory of beliefs about how a
program works and why the
problems of oppression, domination, and power relationships exist."

*4. "The Pragmatic Worldview"*
(kind of a pick-and-choose stance about worldviews, which the authors
appears to sympathize with)
"Pragmatism is not committed to any one system of philosophy and reality.
This applies to mixed methods research in that inquirers draw liberally
from both quantitative and qualitative assumptions when they engage in
their research." "Truth is what works at the time. It is not based in a
duality between reality independent of the mind or within the mind."

Regards, Tilman

On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 8:28 AM Andrew Green  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I hope this is the right place to ask this question!
>
> I was wondering if folks who are doing (or are interested in) research
> about Wikipedia might like to share texts that they feel best describe
> the general research frameworks they use (or might like to use).
>
> I'd love to hear about any texts you like, regardless of format
> (textbook, paper, general reference, blog post, etc.).
>
> It seems a lot of work about Wikipedia uses approaches from
> Computational Social Science. The main references I have for that are
> [1] and [2].
>
> I'm especially interested in links between Computational Social Science
> and frameworks from more traditional social sciences and cognitive science.
>
> Many thanks in advance! :) Cheers,
> Andrew
>
> [1] Cioffi-Revilla, C. (2017) /Introduction to Computational Social
> Science. Principles and Applications. Second Edition./ Cham,
> Switzerland: Springer.
>
> [2] Melnik, R. (ed.) (2015)/Mathematical and Computational Modeling.
> With Applications in Natural and Social Sciences, Engineering, and the
> Arts/. Hoboken, U.S.A.