Speculative Experimentation in (Methodological) Pluriverse

This article is slightly modified from the Invited Egon Guba Memorial Lecture I gave at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) annual meeting in 2021. Drs. Aaron Kuntz and Juha Suoranta served as my discussants and their individual responses and comments are linked to this article. I think of this article having many potential provocations and imagined audiences while I intentionally did not carry forward linear and logical argumentation structure. Instead, I thought about qualitative pasts, many presences of today’s qualitative inquiries and I aimed to vision potentially more diverse and inviting qualitative futures. I wrote within and through interrelated plural flows of relationality, including speculative, experimentative, and methodological flows. Furthermore, speculative experimentation inspired me as one methodological possibility as it offers opportunities for creative imagination, critical hesitation, reflective questioning, and thinking with unthinkable futures.

Connecting Discourse and Domain Models in Discourse Analysis through Ontological Proxies

Argumentation-oriented discourse analysis usually focuses on what is being said and how, following the text under analysis quite literally, and paying little attention to the things in the world to which the text refers. However, to perform argumentation-oriented discourse analysis, one must assume certain conceptualisations by the speaker in order to interpret and reconstruct propositions and argumentation structures. These conceptualisations are rarely captured as a product of the analysis process. In this paper, we argue that considering the ontology to which a discourse refers as well as the text itself provides a richer and more useful representation of the discourse and its argumentation structures, facilitates intertextual analysis, and improves understandability of the analysis products. To this end, we propose the notion of ontological proxies, i.e., conceptual artefacts that connect elements in the argumentation structure to the associated ontology elements.

An argumentative reconstruction of the computer metaphor of the brain

The computer metaphor of the brain is frequently criticized by scientists and philosophers outside the computational paradigm. Proponents of the metaphor may then seek to defend its explanatory merits, in which case the metaphor functions as a standpoint. Insofar as previous research in argumentation theory has treated metaphors either as presentational devices or arguments by analogy, this points to hitherto unexplored aspects of how metaphors may function in argumentative discourse. We start from the assumption that the computer metaphor of the brain constitutes an explanatory hypothesis and set out to reconstruct it as a standpoint defended by a complex argumentation structure: abduction supported by analogy. We then provide three examples of real arguments conforming to our theoretically motivated construction. We conclude that our study obtains proof-of-concept but that more research is needed in order to further clarify the relationship between our theoretical construct and the complexities of empirical reality.

Understanding co-editing mechanism of wiki-based digital humanities projects

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reveal the co-editing mechanism aiming at content creation, and an entry of online encyclopedia is taken as a case, for the purpose of promoting and enhancing the development of wiki-based digital humanities projects (WDHPs), specifically, the projects that focus on gathering contextual information in the culture heritage domain. Design/methodology/approach An exploratory study was conducted by three steps. A representative entry’s editorial records were reorganized to obtain a data set of discussion statements (n=608), based on which linked-structures were built, and PageRank algorithm was used to analyze the co-editing process. Skewness statistic was applied to measure the consensus of co-editing, and consensus evolution over time was explored. Linear or curve fitting was performed to analyze the correlation between consensus evolution and its influential factors. Findings In WDHPs, co-editing activity of content creation can be considered as a large-scale group discussion, consensus can evaluate the efficiency of co-editing, which evolves with time and is influenced by the number of statements, breadth and depth of argumentation structure. Taking “Mogao Grottoes” as an example, group discussions around 15 key issues dominate the content creating process, consensus is on a rise with time, finally reaches a relatively high level, and consensus evolution is more influenced by breadth than by depth of argumentation structure, which indicates that co-editing efficiency of “Mogao Grottoes” is fine and more argumentation in a depth manner should be guided. Practical implications For researchers of WDHPs, it is beneficial to apply online encyclopedia platform combining with consensus analysis to develop WDHPs. For designers of WDHPs, the elements related to argumentation structure can be absorbed into the design to promote co-editing in an effective manner. For DH researchers, the analytic procedure can be beneficial of revealing the interest of contributors in a specific DH field. Originality/value This research is novel in comprehensively understanding co-editing mechanism of content creation in WDHPs, resulting in a three-step analytic procedure of presenting co-editing process, evaluating and improving co-editing efficiency.