Grounding Theory in Digital Data: A Methodological Approach for a Reflective Procedural Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Instead of looking for new paradigms for Digital Humanities (DH), we present Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) as a methodological approach to frame digital research practices more reflectively. By turning to the epistemological and practical implications of digital tools like Topic Modeling and digital data sources like YouTube comments, we highlight the theoretical assumptions that are already in the game—and call for more explicitness and methodical monitoring. To explain the procedures of GTM and the proposed worth for DH, we present an example of a qualitative research project using machine learning techniques to narrow down a large scale of data to human interpretable resample. The methodically monitored resampling process provided valuable means to validly minimize the amount of data without losing a qualitative trajectory of the process itself. Defining and tracing _relevant_ content in our original data set enabled us to find related comments and textual conversations to be analyzed further. We discuss the example iteration in two ways: Our prototype and procedure show on the one hand, how qualitative research and computational methods can be better intertwined without compromising their epistemological foundations. On the other hand, we argue for an understanding of DH as research practice, that should follow an abductive research agenda in order to ground its theories in data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.232 | 0.201 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".