Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T22:48:51.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 8 - One Picture to Study One Thousand Words

Visualization for Qualitative Research in the Age of Digitalization

from Part II - Methodological Considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2023

By
Hani Safadi ,
Marie-Claude Boudreau  and
Samer Faraj
Edited by
Boyka Simeonova  and
Robert D. Galliers
Boyka Simeonova
Affiliation:
University of Leicester
Robert D. Galliers
Affiliation:
Bentley University, Massachusetts and Warwick Business School
Get access

Summary

This chapter advocates further advancing qualitative research methods by creating tools to investigate digital traces of digital phenomena. It specifically focuses on large-scale textual datasets and shows how interactive visualization can be used to augment qualitative researchers’ capabilities to theorize from trace data. The approach is grounded on prior work in sense-making, visual analytics and interactive visualization, and shows how tasks enabled by visualization systems can be synergistically integrated with the qualitative research process. Finally, these principles are applied with several open-source text mining and interactive visualization systems. The chapter aims to stimulate further interest and provide specific guidelines for developing and expanding the repertoire of open-source systems for qualitative research.

Keywords

grounded theorybig datasense-makinginteractive visualizationvisual analyticsnatural language processing
Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Qualitative Digital Research , pp. 104 - 124
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbasi, A., Sarker, S. and Chiang, R. (2016). Big data research in information systems: Toward an inclusive research agenda. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(2), i–xxxii.Google Scholar
Agarwal, R. and Dhar, V. (2014). Editorial – big data, data science, and analytics: The opportunity and challenge for IS research. Information Systems Research, 25(3), 443–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. H., Van Essen, D. C. and Olshausen, B. A. (2005). Directed visual attention and the dynamic control of information flow. In Itti, L., Rees, G. and Tsotsos, J. (eds), Neurobiology of Attention. London, Burlington, MA and San Diego, CA: Elsevier, pp. 11–17.Google Scholar
Bansal, P. T., Smith, W. K. and Vaara, E. (2018). From the editors: New ways of seeing through qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1189–1195.Google Scholar
Bengio, Y., Courville, A. and Vincent, P. (2013). Representation learning: A review and new perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 35(8), 1798–1828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berente, N., Seidel, S. and Safadi, H. (2019). Research commentary – data-driven computationally intensive theory development. Information Systems Research, 30(1), 50–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blei, D. M. and Lafferty, J. D. (2007). A correlated topic model of science. Annals of Applied Statistics, 1(1), 17–35.Google Scholar
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y. and Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.Google Scholar
Brehmer, M., Ingram, S., Stray, J. and Munzner, T. (2014). Overview: The design, adoption, and analysis of a visual document mining tool for investigative journalists. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20(12), 2271–2280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage, Vol. 10.Google Scholar
Chau, D. H., Kittur, A., Hong, J. I. and Faloutsos, C. (2011). Apolo: Making sense of large network data by combining rich user interaction and machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: ACM Press, Vol. 46, pp. 167–176.Google Scholar
Chuang, J., Manning, C. D. and Heer, J. (2012). Termite: Visualization techniques for assessing textual topic models. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 74–77.Google Scholar
Cilibrasi, R. L. and Vitanyi, P. M. B. (2007). The google similarity distance. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 19(3), 370–383.Google Scholar
Collobert, R. and Weston, J. (2008). A unified architecture for natural language processing. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
Collobert, R., Weston, J., Bottou, L., Karlen, M., Kavukcuoglu, K. and Kuksa, P. (2000). Natural language processing (almost) from scratch. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 1, 1–48.Google Scholar
Cook, S. D. N. and Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dervin, B., Foreman-Wernet, L. and Lauterbach, E. (eds) (2003). Sense-Making Methodology Reader: Selected Writings of Brenda Dervin. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. (2015). Adapting computational text analysis to social science (and vice versa). Big Data & Society, 2(2), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, P., Nag, M. and Blei, D. (2013). Exploiting affinities between topic modeling and the sociological perspective on culture: Application to newspaper coverage of U.S. government arts funding. Poetics, 41(6), 570–606.Google Scholar
Dou, W., Wang, X., Skau, D., Ribarsky, W. and Zhou, M. X. (2012). LeadLine: Interactive visual analysis of text data through event identification and exploration. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology 2012, Seattle, WA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, J. (2019). Introduction to Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Endert, A., Hossain, M. S., Ramakrishnan, N., North, C., Fiaux, P. and Andrews, C. (2014). The human is the loop: New directions for visual analytics. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 43(3), 411–435.Google Scholar
Fararo, T. J. and McClelland, K. A. (2006). Introduction: Control systems thinking in sociological theory. In McClelland, K. A. and Fararo, T. J. (eds), Purpose, Meaning, and Action: Control Systems Theories in Sociology. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Finlay, L. (2002). ‘Outing’ the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 531–545.Google Scholar
Gaskin, J., Berente, N., Lyytinen, K. and Yoo, Y. (2014). Toward generalizable sociomaterial inquiry: A computational approach for ‘zooming in & out’ of sociomaterial routines. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 849–871.Google Scholar
George, G., Osinga, E. C., Lavie, D. and Scott, B. A. (2016). Big data and data science methods for management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1493–1507.Google Scholar
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G. and Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, B. G. (2013). No Preconceptions: The Grounded Theory Dictum. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. G. (2005). The Grounded Theory Perspective III: Theoretical Coding. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gotz, D., Zhou, M. X. and Aggarwal, V. (2006). Interactive visual synthesis of analytic knowledge. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology 2006, Baltimore, MD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, A. G. (2012). There is nothing so theoretical as a good method. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2), 99–108.Google Scholar
Grimmer, J. and Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannigan, T., Haans, R. F. J., Vakili, K., Tchalian, H., Glaser, V. L. et al. (2019). Topic modeling in management research: Rendering new theory from textual data. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 586–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, M. (2004). Diagrams in the mind and in the world: Relations between internal and external visualizations. In Blackwell, A. F., Marriott, K. and Shimojima, A. (eds), Diagrammatic Representation and Inference: Third International Conference, Diagrams 2004, Cambridge, UK. Proceedings. Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Heimerl, F., Lohmann, S., Lange, S. and Ertl, T. (2014). Word cloud explorer: Text analytics based on word clouds. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI.Google Scholar
Hindman, M. (2015). Building better models: Prediction, replication, and machine learning in the social sciences. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hukal, P., Henfridsson, O., Shaikh, M. and Parker, G. (2020). Platform signaling for generating platform content. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 44(3), 1177–1206.Google Scholar
Johnson, S. L., Gray, P. and Sarker, S. (2019). Revisiting IS research practice in the era of big data. Information and Organization, 29(1), 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsh, D. (2009). Interaction, external representation and sense making. In Taatgen, N. A. and van Rijn, H. (eds), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1103–1108.Google Scholar
Klein, D., Smarr, J., Nguyen, H. and Manning, C. D. (2003). Named entity recognition with character-level models. Proceedings of the Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT-NAACL 2003, Edmonton, Canada, Vol. 4, pp. 180–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, G., Moon, B. and Hoffman, R. R. (2006a). Making sense of sensemaking 1: Alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 70–73.Google Scholar
Klein, G., Moon, B. and Hoffman, R. R. (2006b). Making sense of sensemaking 2: A macrocognitive model. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(5), 88–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kucher, K. and Kerren, A. (2019). Text visualization revisited: The state of the field in 2019. In Madeiras Pereira, J. and Raidou, R. G. (eds), EuroVis 2019 – Posters. The Eurographics Association, pp. 29–31.Google Scholar
Kucher, K. and Kerren, A. (2015). Text visualization techniques: Taxonomy, visual survey, and community insights. 2015 IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (pacificVis), Hangzhou, China.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, A., Irsoy, O., Su, J., Iyyer, M., Bradbury, J. et al. (2015). Ask me anything: Dynamic memory networks for natural language processing. ArXiv, pp. 1–10, http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.07285.Google Scholar
Landauer, T. K., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S. and Kintsch, W. (2013). Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larkin, J. and Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65–100.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2010). Tarde’s idea of quantification. In Candea, M. (ed.), The Social after Gabriel Tarde: Debates and Assessments. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 145–162.Google Scholar
Lazer, D., Pentland, A. S., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabasi, A.-L., Brewer, D. et al. (2009). Life in the network: The coming age of computational social science. Science, 323(5915), 721–723.Google Scholar
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y. and Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436–444.Google Scholar
Lee, A. S. (1989). A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Quarterly, 13(1), 33–50.Google Scholar
Levina, N. and Arriaga, M. (2014). Distinction and status production on user-generated content platforms: Using Bourdieu’s theory of cultural production to understand social dynamics in online fields. Information Systems Research, 25(3), 468–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levina, N. and Vaast, E. (2015). Leveraging archival data from online communities for grounded process theorizing. In Elsbach, K. D. and Kramer, R. M. (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Organizational Research: Innovative Pathways and Methods. Abingdon, UK and New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 215–224.Google Scholar
Lindberg, A. (2020). Developing theory through integrating human and machine pattern recognition. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(1), 90–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Z., Nersessian, N. and Stasko, J. (2008). Distributed cognition as a theoretical framework for information visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 14(6), 1173–1180.Google Scholar
Maitlis, S. and Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57–125.Google Scholar
Manning, C. D., Schütze, H. and Raghavan, P. (2008). Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCallum, A. K. (2002). Mallet: A machine learning for language toolkit, http://mallet.cs.umass.edu.Google Scholar
McKenna, B., Myers, M. D. and Newman, M. (2017). Social media in qualitative research: Challenges and recommendations. Information and Organization, 27(2), 87–99.Google Scholar
Mikolov, T., Yih, W. and Zweig, G. (2013). Linguistic regularities in continuous space word representations. Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1984). Informavores. In Machlup, F. and Mansfield, U. (eds), The Study of Information: Interdisciplinary Messages. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience, pp. 111–113.Google Scholar
Mohr, J. W. and Bogdanov, P. (2013). Introduction – topic models: What they are and why they matter. Poetics, 41(6), 545–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, J. M., Stern, P. N., Corbin, J. M., Charmaz, K. C., Bowers, B. and Clarke, A. E. (2009). Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation, Vol. 5: Developing Qualitative Inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
Müller, O., Debortoli, S., Junglas, I. and vom Brocke, J. (2016). Using text analytics to derive customer service management benefits from unstructured data. MIS Quarterly Executive, 15(4), 243–258.Google Scholar
Munzner, T. (2014). Visualization Analysis and Design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Neef, D. (2014). Digital Exhaust: What Everyone Should Know about Big Data, Digitization and Digitally Driven Innovation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391–1418.Google Scholar
Østerlund, C., Crowston, K. and Jackson, C. (2020). Building an apparatus: Refractive, reflective, and diffractive readings of trace data. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Pan, S. L. and Tan, B. (2011). Demystifying case research: A structured-pragmatic-situational (SPS) approach to conducting case studies. Information and Organization, 21(3), 161–176.Google Scholar
Pentland, B., Recker, J., Wolf, J. and Wyner, G. M. (2020). Bringing context inside process research with digital trace data. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(5), 1214–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pentland, B. T. (2016). ThreadNet: Tracing and visualizing associations between actions. IFIP Working Group 8.2, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Pirolli, P. and Card, S. (2005). The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligence Analysis, McLean, VA.Google Scholar
Pirolli, P. and Card, S. (1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106(4), 643–675.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1962). Tacit knowing: Its bearing on some problems of philosophy. Reviews of Modern Physics, 34(4), 601–616.Google Scholar
Rai, A. (2016). Synergies between big data and theory. MIS Quarterly, 40(2), iii–ix.Google Scholar
Rehurek, R. and Sojka, P. (2010). Software framework for topic modelling with large corpora. Proceedings of LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks, Valletta, Malta.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. and Kramer, E. H. (2006). Abduction as the type of inference that characterizes the development of a grounded theory. Qualitative Research, 6(4), 497–513.Google Scholar
Rosen-Zvi, M., Chemudugunta, C., Griffiths, T., Smyth, P. and Steyvers, M. (2010). Learning author-topic models from text corpora. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 28(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Russell, D. M., Stefik, M. J., Pirolli, P. and Card, S. K. (1993). The cost structure of sensemaking. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’93), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Safadi, H. (2015). Knowledge creation in health IT online communities. Thesis, McGill University Libraries, https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/ng451m74d.Google Scholar
Safadi, H. and Boudreau, M.-C. (2017). Design of an interactive visual system to support grounded process theorizing from qualitative data. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017, 11597.Google Scholar
Safadi, H., Johnson, S. L. and Faraj, S. (2020). Who contributes knowledge? Core-periphery tension in online innovation communities. Organization Science, 32(3), 752–775.Google Scholar
Satoshi Sekine, K. S. and Nobata, C. (2002). Extended named entity hierarchy. Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2002), Las Palmas, Spain.Google Scholar
Schirner, G., Erdogmus, D., Chowdhury, K. and Padir, T. (2013). The future of human-in-the-loop cyber-physical systems. Computer, 46(1), 36–45.Google Scholar
Schmiedel, T., Müller, O. and vom Brocke, J. (2019). Topic modeling as a strategy of inquiry in organizational research: A tutorial with an application example on organizational culture. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 941–968.Google Scholar
Schultze, U. (2012). Performing embodied identity in virtual worlds. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(1), 84–95.Google Scholar
Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 465–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirley, P., Ashikhmin, M. and Marschner, S. (2015). Fundamentals of Computer Graphics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Shrinivasan, Y. B. and van Wijk, J. J. (2008). Supporting the analytical reasoning process in information visualization. Proceedings of the Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
Sievert, C. and Shirley, K. (2014). LDAvis: A method for visualizing and interpreting topics. Proceedings of the Workshop on Interactive Language Learning, Visualization, and Interfaces, Baltimore, MD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Singhal, A. (2012). Introducing the knowledge graph: Things, not strings. https://blog.google/products/search/introducing-knowledge-graph-things-not/.Google Scholar
Socher, R., Perelygin, A., Wu, J. Y., Chuang, J., Manning, C. D., Ng, A. and Potts, C. (2013). Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Stasko, J., Görg, C. and Spence, R. (2008). Jigsaw: Supporting investigative analysis through interactive visualization. Information Visualization, 7(2), 118–132.Google Scholar
Stohl, C., Stohl, M. and Leonardi, P. M. (2016). Managing opacity: Information visibility and the paradox of transparency in the digital age. International Journal of Communication, 10(1), 123–137.Google Scholar
Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, Vol. 2.Google Scholar
Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.Google Scholar
Thomas, G. and James, D. (2006). Reinventing grounded theory: Some questions about theory, ground and discovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32(6), 767–795.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 941–957.Google Scholar
Turian, J., Ratinov, L., Bengio, Y. and Turian, J. (2010). Word representations: A simple and general method for semi-supervised learning. Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Tweed, A. and Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods for mental health practitioners. In Harper, D. and Thompson, A. R. (eds), Qualitative Research Methods in Mental Health and Psychotherapy: A Guide for Students and Practitioners. Chichester, UK: John Wiley, pp. 131–146.Google Scholar
Urquhart, C. (2013). Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide. London and Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H. and Myers, M. D. (2010). Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: Guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 20(4), 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaast, E., Safadi, H. and Cohen, L. (2015). The distributed construction of an occupational community with social media. International Conference of Information Systems, Fort Worth, TX.Google Scholar
Vaast, E., Safadi, H., Lapointe, L. and Negoita, B. (2017). Social media affordances for connective action: An examination of microblogging use during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), 1179–1205.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. and Poole, M. (1990). Methods for studying innovation development in the Minnesota innovation research program. Organization Science, 1(3), 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A. and Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54.Google Scholar
Walsh, I., Holton, J. A., Bailyn, L., Fernandez, W., Levina, N. and Glaser, B. (2015). What grounded theory is … a critically reflective conversation among scholars. Organizational Research Methods, 18(4), 1–19.Google Scholar
Walsh, R. A. (1995). The approach of the human science researcher: Implications for the practice of qualitative research. Humanistic Psychologist, 23(3), 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware, C. (2012). Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Waltham, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Watts, D. J. (2013). Computational social science: Exciting progress and future directions. Bridge on Frontiers of Engineering, 43(4), 5–10.Google Scholar
Wright, W., Schroh, D., Proulx, P., Skaburskis, A. and Cort, B. (2006). The Sandbox for analysis: Concepts and methods. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.Google Scholar
Xiong, C., Merity, S. and Socher, R. (2016). Dynamic memory networks for visual and textual question answering. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Zachariadis, M., Scott, S. and Barrett, M. (2013). Methodological implications of critical realism for mixed-methods research. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 37(3), 855–879.Google Scholar
Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×