Protected: Feedback Wilma literature review article

Published on: 30/09/2012

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Protected: Notes for intro dissertation

Published on: 06/05/2012

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Stedelijk burgerschap volgens Andre van Es:

Categories: Reflections
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: 24/04/2012

Stedelijk burgerschap volgens Andre van Es:

Hoffelijkheid heet Civilty van filosoof Ross

Die drie concepten worden gesteund door de rechtstaat en volgens mij nog de andere steunberen uit her krantenknipsel van …

In Amsterdam twee dingen belangrijk: urbanisatie en ondernemerschap:

1 Urbanisatie
Urban mgt
Zorg welzijn

2 Ondernemerscgap

Die twee dingen verbinden: toverwoord: innovatie. Snap ik niet helemaal.

Stuk van Frank Furedi over tolerantie. Dat is gerelateerd aan hoffelijkheid.

Andrew Ross on Scholarly Reporting:

Begon allemaal met marijke, mila, michiel en ik. Toen sandra., victor em kitty en ben. Daarna liesbet en joke, daarna susanne, gabriel, ian stiwart, …

Cb: ties between people (cohesion)
and the value of these ties (capital).
Person efficacy and communityeffeicacy.

Focus in network analysis:

Participation sec delivers ties. But networked individuLism also delivers ties.

Personal development, community development, community memory, cultural citizenship

Protected: Points Liesbet 02-04-2012

Published on: 02/04/2012

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

ECSWR March 23-24

Categories: Methods, Must, Reflections
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: 27/03/2012

Went to the European Conference on Social Work Research (see abstract book here).

Made some notes for my PhD-project (I’ll put the relation to my other work in the Master Social Work somewhere else):

  1. From the talk of Sue White:
    1. Weick says something about ‘organizational culture as a source for high reliability’ in a 1987 article in Culture Management Review. How is reliability defined, here? Is that a concept also applicable to a neighborhood community?
    2. “Fish don’t know they are in the water”. In other words: we all have defensive routines in a context to keep things non-discussable, and we don’t realize that. The stuff that is (far) below water level of the cultural ice berg.
  2. From the talk of Andreas Walter:
    1. The matrix with the micro-meso-macro was interesting to maybe use in my literature review as a means to order my concepts.
    2. Also the principle of “normalization of life course narrative” might be something to look at. I have to remember that it is from the caregiver perspective. First wait until I an answer on my mail for his presentation.
  3. From the talk from Jean-Michel Bronvin and Stephan Dahmen:
    1. The capability approach as a model to assess EBP’s, acountability and a normative tool for social work. Might be a theory to use in my research. I have an example in my sources that I can check later on.
    2. This makes me think again of the character of many theoretical concepts within the domain of social work (and thus the ECSWR-conference): often they are related to an intervention that has to solve a certain problem; not to prevent a possible problem or, in other words, grab a chance….
  4. From Matthias Otten’s talk:
    1. On the congruence of three dimensions when it comes to intercultural communication research: alignment of concept of culture, methods and views on significance.
      1. Being culture-doing culture,
      2. emic methods-etic methods and
      3. research als predictor- research als signifier.
      4. See this article.
  5. From the workshop of Ute Karl and Ulla Peters:
    1. (Institutional) conversational analysis
      1. How are things said?
      2. What is the function of what is said?
      3. Why this utterance?
      4. What is the orientation?
      5. What are the different layers of context? (geographical, interactional, institutional, intentional, etc.)
      6. What is the context of knowledge production?
    2. Documentary analysis
      1. The hermeneutic stence.
      2. Document sense with cultural worlds and frames located in social practices.
      3. Problem solving in interaction (sinngenetisch) and/or in society (soziogenetisch).
      4. Happens in conjunctive experiences.
      5. See for example this text and these books by Scott.
  6. From the workshop of Ian Shawn, which is all about ‘narrative research’:
    1. Thematic analysis:
      1. More themes in one narrative.
      2. Text can contain different meanings and idea’s.
      3. These with-case-themes can be compared across different cases.
      4. It is about what is being said.
    2. Narrative analysis:
      1. One narrative seen as a whole.
      2. That must be a message then?
      3. Can be used to compare cases as a whole.
      4. Is about how it is said
    3. With the last bit I don’t agree completely. I would say that different themes can be introduced in the narrative in order the build up the story as a whole. Maybe we can say something like: how the teller talks about the themes, connects them, tells us the narrative as a whole. So the ‘what question’ can be asked on different levels and the how frames or enriches these meanings.
    4. I have to check the literature on narrative analysis when I am ready for it. See also the literature on Ian’s slides.
  7. So there are the following analyses I have been introduced to:
    1. Discourse, narrative, thematic, conversational, documentary.
    2. Questions like the following can be asked, but I have to find out more about these different analyses.
      1. What is said?
      2. How is it said?
      3. What are the themes?
      4. What is meant?
      5. What is the message/ plot?
      6. What are the assumptions?
      7. What is the intention?
      8. What are the different kind of contexts?

Some notes wrt review

Categories: Reflections
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: 21/02/2012

Some notes

See the questions of Flyvbjerg wrt phronesis

Check Alexander Maas en marian Florie EUR

Elaborated and restricted code – Burnsteen (via Martin)

Geen liefde kunnen geven verhardt. Liefde geven maakt ‘een vlek’.

Misschien Didactiek van de liefde even bekijken.

Feedback PhD-Lab commission

Categories: Article 1, Reflections
Tags: No Tags
Comments: 1 Comment
Published on: 29/10/2011

About two weeks ago I handed in my first draft article. I received feedback on two aspects: 1) on the content of the article and 2) on my achievements as a PhD-student up till now and, based on that, some advice for the future. The feedback came from Paul de Beer, Judith Metz and Liesbet van Zoonen:

Content of the article

  1. Judith described 3 parts in which my article could be divided:
    1. Finding the organizational model to describe a local memory website with (based on the literature review and fine-tuning of the model by looking at cases from the field).
    2. Mapping the field by comparing the model to a set of local memory websites.
    3. Analyzing the on-line activity and its relations to aspects of the model (passive participation =  visitors and active participation = contributors).
  2. Both Judith and Paul: The parts 1-1 and 1-2 above (organizational model and mapping the field) is enough for an article. This gives the opportunity (demand?) to make both steps more transparent and thus convincing. This becomes a descriptive article which is a bit harder (less exiting) to ‘sell’.
  3. The results of part 1-2 makes 1-3 possible which could also be a independent article based on a question like: “How do organizational aspects or a combination thereof invite people to participate?”
  4. Paul (p. 3) : shouldn’t you use the word dimension instead of category? Yes. (Lesson learned: An earlier reviewer didn’t understand the word dimension, but I shouldn’t have followed here comments so relentlessly)
  5. Paul and Liesbet (p. 5): The research question should be clear much earlier in the article (introduction), at the least roughly. Two remarks on the present question:
    1. “What characterizes …” is too broad; it could become more exciting when you put in something like clusters or patterns.
    2. “…these fifty three cases …” is too narrow, we would like to get the idea that the conclusions (might) apply to all local memory websites.
  6. Paul (p. 5): With respect to inter-rater reliability: how did the two researcher coop with their differences? Explain.
  7. Judith and Paul (table 2 p. 5): For the part where the model is fine-tuned based on the cases (1-1 above), the dispersion of lesser importance. On the other hand, for describing the field (1-2 above) the dispersion is important, just as finding (snowballing) and selecting them is. For this I could use a set of Dutch cases first and then see whether a set of foreign cases make changes in the model. If not, we might say that the model is applicable internationally. If it does, though, then we might be able to claim that there are differences with respect to local memory websites in different nations.
  8. All reviewers (p. 8-9): put these results in tables and in only pay attention in the text to the most remarkable findings.
  9. Paul (p. 11 and further): It is not clear why I use two-step clustering within the dimensions and not across them. The two-step clustering based on log-likely hood produces 2 clusters within the ‘poor model’ area of the results. I could tell the two-step cluster to make for example 5 clusters, then the quality of the model goes up. But, with the hierarchical clustering algorithm it might be easier to decide myself where I make a cut in the dendogram and look at the clusters at that level.
  10. Both: Be careful with claiming that there are relations between characteristics, but also with claiming there is no relation.
  11. Both: percentages (with absolute numbers, because the set of cases is small).
  12. Paul (p. 15) questioned whether I could suggest the existence of three types based on my methodology. I acknowledged that, but now that I look at my text again I doubt whether he was right:
    1. If A seems to have a relation/ co occurs with B and B with C, then it must be allowed to suggest there seems to be a type characterized by A, B and C (?)
  13. Paul thought this peace was a bit disappointing:
    1. “However, it should be noted that a direct relation between involved parties and on-line activity was not identified. In other words: claims about the on-line activity related to the three types of initiatives cannot be made at present. This is one of the methodological consequences of the approach performed here. We applied strong clustering on the levels of all categories in order to make the number of variables manageable and reducing the complexity. At the same time this means a loss of detail about, for example, the involved parties in which libraries and universities were clustered into knowledge institutions.”
    2. When I look at this again, I don’t think there is anything wrong with the conclusion (in bold). The explanation, though, is not adequate and causes the disappointment.  I should have said something like: “This is an interesting finding, because it implies that on-line engagement according to our data relies mostly on the affordances. The hypothesis that involved professionals have an negative influence on the on-line engagement has to be further tested.”
    3. Mental note: I did not cluster the cases into three types to check the relation between type and on-line engagement.
  14. The last thing we talked about was the content. I should make clear that I did not really look at the content, but only at some characteristics of how the content is framed. Like I say in the text, the actual content might be of (social) interest in general, but also for the on-line engagement specifically.


  1. The advice will be send later by Paul, but it is something like “you have done a lot of work in your first year: continue your PhD-project!”. Some tips for me:
    1. There should be more focus in the article; this might mean that I should go for two texts with both their own message.
    2. It is very good to have an empirical start like this in an early stage, but it has taken a lot of energy/ time. The theoretical foundations (e.g how website characteristics invite people to participate) are lacking up till now. Time to put that in.
    3. I should specialize more in quantitative approaches (in general, but specifically in hierarchical clustering techniques).

Protected: State of affairs/ lessons learned wrt 1st concept article

Published on: 23/10/2011

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


Categories: Reflections
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: 15/09/2011

Some recent thoughts that I should pursue:

  1. In connection with the text of Jeroen: isn’t it dangerous to expect a profession ‘to become established’ (e.g. Community development)?  The risk of a profession to become established might be that the cohesion / goal (?) between professionals becomes too strong and they start to (only) talk together about the target group without interacting with the target group themselves. Might be a wild guess but it is the feeling that came over me reading about my research topic and being part of the processes around the memory of east and the professionals involved.
  2. In relation to this: I should start to make a kind of diary about me experiences with becoming a part of the MoE and the relations it has with the Amsterdam Museum (expert meeting, frustrations/ different perspectives, amount work).
  3. This also relates to my doubts about framing – and thus directing – my research project: when do my my findings become interesting?
  4. I believe that there a relation can be made with abductive approaches and maybe mode 3 knowledge. The latter is connected with triple loop learning: questioning your own and others assumptions about what is right and wrong.

Facilitate the data to speak for itself

Categories: Reflections
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: 17/07/2011

I find it hard to let the data speak for itself. Both in the literature review – finding the dimensions and the categories –  as in building the code tree – by analyzing the cases. The interesting thing is that once I get myself in the right modus – bottom up: what are they really saying? without filling it in – the work becomes easier and I get better results (I believe). A quick thought: filling the (qualitative) analysis in too much as a researcher has to do with ego. This idea stems from the discussion I often hear in the context of social work, where a thread to the sustainability of the help offered, is a professional who wants to help too much. This also gets related to egos being too big, in other words the short term results are of personal importance to the professional.

So: be humble and facilitate the data to speak for itself

«page 1 of 3


Welcome , today is Saturday, 23/06/2018