Grounding Theory in Digital Data: A Methodological Approach for a Reflective Procedural Framework
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it