Angela: Right now you can find most of my annotations for the deutero chapter here.
I see three parts to the chapter right now.
Opening is our characterization of the research space in Nai. I will have done a lot of this work also earlier in a separate chapter of the dissertation but it would be good to rearticulate it anyway here and also in preparation for including it in the ESTS article.
Then one argument we are making I think is articulating what we see as the "double binds" or the reasons why open data (in research) hasn't had the transformative effects hoped for (e.g. unfulfilled promises of "open data for good governance"). What do we worry about regarding open data and who else is also worried (and about what?)? This may tie nicely into characterizing the Nairobi research problem space.
Then I think we will explore other ways of "being" - [from the survey we might hear of other groups that are trying similar things?]. For us, we can articulate our group and what we are doing as trying to establish another way of exploring research. Need to then articulate [and I think we are getting there] of what distinguishes what we are doing as a group. For example, perhaps it's the light structures; loose "organic" nature of the collaboration (and shifts in our own mindset because of the engagement)... Is this partly because of the context and event from which the group emerged? What else?
I think some of the convo from today's call (Oct. 8) of what it means to begin to carve out a "Nairobi Research" space means was really interesting...