Sketch 3: Peer Review for Kim Fernandes
Hi Kim! I saw that you have both handwritten and typed notes, and that you scan your handwritten notes. Whereas, when I have any handwritten notes lying around, I feel like I have to type them into digital documents thinking that I might need to search something in them, highlight them or code them. (But indeed it take more time/energy than just scanning them). Also, I realized that although I do enjoy keeping my field journal on an actual notebook, among all those data I gather digitally on my computer, I tend to resort to those handwritten notes less often as most of my data are digital. Like in other areas of my life, I neither feel like going for 100% digital nor 100% analogue, which can be super fine for personal note taking or other areas, but it troubles me when it comes to conducting an effective research. So I was wondering whether what I am talking about sounds any familiar to you, and if so, whether you have a way to deal with it? Thanks!
Sketch 1: Peer Review for Clara Fernández
Hi Clara! My question is actually is not derived from your answers per se, I was already thinking about them while answering these questions myself, and now wanted to share them with you hoping that it would also resonate with you.
I wonder how easy it would be for researchers in STS (a field that -as far as I understand so far- tries to avoid imposing logics/big concepts over every-day practices while explaining them, challenges all those traditional over-arching arguments, and has an inclusive approach in general while reconsidering the stakeholders/actants etc.) to admit that for some topics/in some contexts they can also have these tendancies (e.g. being repulsed by the counter example, over generalizing etc.). Or even: Would it really be possible not to have those tendencies at all, or more specificallty not to create new big narratives, logics that would exclude some, that would not be open to all?