Some ... personal news:

OK, more housekeeping ahead of putting this account up on blocks.

#BurnNotice - search for that coming from my account, you'll learn some things about troubles in late 2020.

But this is going to be pretty meta, it's about what goes a #BurnNotice and why.

We've used the #BurnNotice tag in the past to denote an entity that is in need of special attention. That practice dates back to 2011/2012 and lapsed some time ago.

This is a more traditional sort of

Let's put some bounds on this. Those in a #BurnNotice are NOT:

1) people I dislike

2) people I think are competitors in some fashion

3) "feds", whatever you people mean by this undefined term.

4) informants. Got a list of those, too, it's handled differently.

The #BurnNotice is more focused on people who present as if they might be working for Erik

Or maybe they work for Tiger

1. On Fri. 8 Jan. Military Intel Contact said to keep phones on, charged and ready for Tier 4B notification as the RV release was being expedited and our start was at any time.

There is a highly instructive symposium on "Veil of Ignorance" #ProcessTracing in the new @APSAtweets QMMR publication https://t.co/nxqEQ9HaRz There is lots to say ab it. For now, I want to focus on whether (causal) qualitative research has a problem w/ confirmation bias that 1/

needs to be addressed.
In short, Veil of Ignorance process tracing aims to blindfold the data collectors and analysts to the hypotheses to reduce risk of confirmation bias.
Proposal receives a lot of criticism by all respondents, partly for valid reasons, partly not, IMO 2/

If there was no bigger issue with confirmation bias, there would not be much benefit in talking about blinding in qualitative research.
As Beach notes, the intro to the symposium does not present evidence that bias is a problem. This is correct, but there is also no evidence 3/

that confirmation bias is not a problem. It's an absence of evidence situation with regard to comprehensive, direct evidence, i.e. from verification studies of qualitative research (for studies that are built on an epistemology for which the idea of verification makes sense). 4/

However, I'd say there is circumstantial evidence that confirmation bias is a problem.
1) Evidence for confirmation bias in quantitative research: The developments around #OpenScience and transparency in quantitative research in different disciplines present diverse evidence 5/

People! Have you seen people being rude to each other during meetings, maybe directed at women/people of colour/disabled people/LGBTQ+ people? Do you want to help prevent this abuse?

Some tips you can consider as a bystander depending on the situation (thread)

Have a code of conduct and circulate it. Make it clear that abusive behaviour will not be accepted. Build in accountability strategies (what happens if someone violates it). Have a moderator/chair to observe the dynamics of your group.

This kind of behaviour is very normalised and insidious, so train yourself to spot it. Is there somebody that usually interrupts? Is there somebody that usually gets interrupted and silenced? Are there signs of aggressive communication?

Not everyone might like that you jump at their defense - your heart might be in the right place but it can come across as patronising. Try to bring up the subject with your colleagues and see what they think. Foster a culture of positive communication.

Once you see that somebody is trying to interrupt - politely redirect the discussion towards the person that was originally speaking. Eg "thank you for that, now I'd really like to hear what person xyz was saying earlier".