2017 machte Elsevier bei einem Umsatz von rund 2,8 Milliarden Euro eine Milliarde Gewinn. Weil Wissenschafter/innen und Forschende auf die Publikation in den renommierten Journalen angewiesen sind, bekommt Elsevier deren wissenschaftliche Papers de facto gratis. Da diese Forschung größtenteils vom Staat finanziert wird, macht Elsevier öffentlich finanziertes Wissen zu Geld. Gegen diese Politik regt sich nun zunehmend Widerstand. In Deutschland haben sich mehr als 200 Hochschulen, Forschungsinstitute und Bibliotheken zusammengeschlossen und bauen Druck auf, indem sie Elsevier-Abonnements auslaufen lassen. Sie fordern Open-Access-Lösungen
Ich durfte zu der Sendung auch einige O-Töne beisteuern und mich dabei unter anderem als bekennender Sci-Hub-Nutzer ohne diesbezüglich schlechtes Gewissen outen. Eine Woche lang ist die Sendung noch frei zum Nachhören online. (Leider sind ja auch die Radiosendungen von öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanbietern wie Ö1 nicht auch dauerhaft Open Access zugänglich 😉 ).
Although the digital space offers many opportunities in terms of data collection, analysis and new data itself, part 3 of the series ” Thoughts on Digital Qualitative Research” addresses the challenges going hand in hand with digital research. Although each method and each research project may face other or additional questions and difficulties, the challenges presented here are valid for all scholars who aim to conduct digital qualitative inquiry.
The Nature and Quality of Data
The nature and quality of data are crucial for coherent and transparent interpretation. In early research, digital data often required grounding in the offline world to be seen as valid (Rogers, 2013). Although today not all data require grounding outside the digital sphere (Rogers, 2013) as they often describe natively digital phenomena, the methodological context is essential to understand the nature and meaning of the data analysed (Dicks, 2012). Quinton and Reynolds (2018) argue that researches have to define their stance but can freely classify their approaches in terms of methodology.
Part 2 of the series examines the emerging tensions and questions for qualitative research in a Big Data world.
Boyd and Crawford (2012) define the shift to Big Data as a socio-technical phenomenon. The term Big Data describes the huge amount of data aggregated through interaction online and the ability to cross-reference these large data sets for new insights. Discussing the troubling concept of data, Markham (2018) and Rogers (2013) argue that datafication as ideological focus and the methodological turn towards digital research techniques quantifying social processes pose a temptation as well as a challenge for qualitative research at the same time.
The technological ability to collect data does replace the question if qualitative oriented scholars should collect such large amounts of data (Tiidenberg, 2018), from an ethical as well as from a practical point of view (Markham, 2012). Further, these large data sets do not fully represent social phenomena (Markham, 2018), but Big Data changes the way knowledge is created and research is done by changing the instruments, the focus and the process of research (boyd & Crawford, 2012). Markham (2018, p. 520) sees the turn to the quantification in data analysis, the subsumption of qualitative inquiry as an add-on for data-driven science and the pursuit of generalizability as an “ongoing risk, which the interpretative movement has long sought to combat.”
In this short series about qualitative digital methods, I want to introduce basic assumptions, challenges and definitions for qualitative research in the digital space. The first part sheds light on the definition of digital research.
As Hine (2005) and Quinton and Reynolds (2018) state, there is no clear paradigm or restriction for digital research by now. Researchers try to adapt their methodological principles to the digital environment and migrate their ontological and epistemological views into the digital research field.
Please find below the Call for Papers for a Special Issue in Organization Studies on “Open Organizing in an Open Society? Conditions, Consequences and Contradictions of Openness as an Organizing Principle” (PDF), co-edited by Georg von Krogh, Violetta Splitter, Peter Walgenbach, Richard Whittington and myself. In case you are interested to submit a paper to the Special Issue, please also consider to submit a short paper version of it to the upcoming EGOS sub-theme 55 on “Open Organizing for an Open Society? Connecting Research on Organizational Openness” . Submitting authors are not in any way obliged to participate at this sub-theme, and papers presented at the sub-theme are not guaranteed publication in the Special Issue. We just see this sub-theme as an opportunity to develop papers for submission. Deadline for submitting short papers to the EGOS sub-theme is January 14, 2019, deadline for submitting manuscripts to the Special Issue in Organization Studies is November 30, 2019. Continue reading “Call for Papers for a Special Issue in Organization Studies: »Open Organizing in an Open Society?«”→