July 28, 2011

More reflections on CAQDAS

A few years ago while working on my master's in Instructional Technology, I was searching for creative uses of the ubiquitous PowerPoint and stumbled upon a column by artist/musician David Byrne in which he described his first encounter with the presentation software.  Byrne hated the application, calling it "limiting, inflexible, and biased." Despite this, Byrne decided to take up the medium anyway, in order to satirize it.

Then something strange happened.

Byrne realized he could make PowerPoint function as a "metaprogram" in which he could organize all his multimedia content into something "beautiful." He wrote, "I could bend the program to my own whim and use it as an artistic agent.... I could make works that were 'about' something, something beyond themselves, and that they could even have emotional resonance."

Guided by his curiosity and artistic vision, Byrne successfully and effectively co-opted an evil business software and turned it into a creative platform.  This idea really appealed to me at the time because we classroom teachers have been doing that sort of thing for a long time (gradebooks in Excel spreadsheets, writing workshops in MsWord).  

I was reminded of Byrne's artwork this week as I completed the EP604 course readings on CAQDAS, several of which made mention of the historical distrust of computers among some qualitative researchers. In their 1996 paper Qualitative Data Analysis: Technologies and Representations, which, interestingly, was published in what had to have been one of the very first digital journals of social science research, Coffey, Holbrook and Atkinson describe a tension between the increasingly diverse methods of contemporary ethnographic research and a trend towards homogeneity imposed by the "computing moment."

A section of Seale's chapter in Doing Qualitative Research poses this question: "Do computers impose a narrowly exclusive approach to the analysis of qualitative data?" (p. 257)

Following this week's readings and then last night's class discussion, I am convinced the answer is "no." The early fears about "orthodoxy" and "homogeneity" are unfounded. It seems that the qualitative researcher, confident of and consistent in her own methodology, can leverage the power of these seemingly positivist tools to do some powerful meaning making (Friese, 2011; Seale, 2010).

As a former public school teacher, I know a little about oppressive orthodoxies. There is an insidious strain of orthodoxy that pervades K-12 education, and it goes by the innocuous name of "best practice." It's actually very odd. Teachers are told, on the one hand, to implement research-based best practices, while, on the other hand, most progressive education reforms focus on making instruction individualized and learner-centered, not scripted and standardized. In other words, what's "best" for one child may not be "best" for another.  The only "best" practice is what works at a given time, in a given context, with a given student.

Now, as a novice qualitative researcher, I am visiting my classmates' blogs, attending software webinars, participating in EP604 class discussions, and thinking about "best practices" again, this time in light of "digital convergence" (Brown). The digital tools, by their very design, are exploding the notion. Rather than impose a singular and "right" way, the tools are to be explored, evaluated, and adapted to fit our epistemological and methodological needs (Brown; Friese; Seale).

For example:

  • Last night we were provided an overview of two CAQDAS tools, QDAMiner and Transana. Both programs imposed an a priori approach to coding, but our instructor suggested a trick to bypass that: simply create a generic code such as "quotes" or "clips" to use during the first cycle of coding.
  • In her article Using Atlas.ti for Analyzing the Financial Crisis Data, Friese describes in detail how, feeling the grounded theory approach to be inadequate, she devised her own idiosyncratic analytic procedures, which slowly evolved into what she calls "computer-assisted NCT analysis."  In her conclusion, Friese asserts that her coding and analysis process would be the same regardless of the software package she chose.
  • In an earlier post I shared what I was learning about Mendeley which performs double-duty as both a citation manager and a collaborative platform for scholarly research. According to its developers, Mendeley is highly individualized to fit the "idiosyncratic processes of researchers." I wondered about Mendeley as a place for self-publishing.Could it be it is the very embodiment of Brown's "scenario," in which the "massification" of "combined technologies could...provide the opportunity for the proliferation and democratization of the production and dissemination of qualitative research knowledge"? 
Mendeley as a "scholarly Facebook"? Probably not. But I like to think about the possibilities. Even Coffey, Holbrook and Atkinson (1996) concluded that the contemporary ethnographer should give the proliferation of digital tools "serious and systematic" attention or risk becoming a "dreadful anachronism."

P.S. Just for fun, here is a PowerPoint animation set to a remix of Canon in D.  Nothing anachronistic here.



Share/Bookmark

July 26, 2011

Reflection on Atlas.ti

Last night in class, we practiced performing data analysis with Atlas.ti, and the exercise confirmed a nagging suspicion: I have grossly underutilized the functions of this CAQDAS tool. There are so many features and options inside the Atlas.ti environment, and, to quote our instructor, "at least 12 different ways" to perform each function. As we gathered up our things to go home, one of my classmates remarked that she felt like she had "run a marathon."

I've run a few laps already with Atlas.ti, using it to code data for two small projects within the past year.  Yet, even I was mentally and physically wasted after last night's workout.

Maybe "triathlon" is a better way to describe what it's like to work in the flexible and multifaceted environment of Atlas.ti. Konopasek (2008) referred to the "sophisticated interface" of CAQDAS tools in general and then specifically described Atlas.ti's "visualisation" capabilities, in which the researcher's "thoughts or mental operations can easily be stored, recollected, classified, linked, filtered out in great numbers...and made meaningful in sum."

Some rights reserved by hmcotterill
Is this why the Atlas.ti developers named their product after the mighty hero of Greek myth, the one who bore the weight of the world on his shoulders?

Something else strikes me as powerful about Atlas.ti and the other digital tools we are exploring. Again and again in the EP604 course readings, I've noticed the suggestion that technology is blurring the lines between the strict, paradigmatic camps -- quantitative vs. qualitative, positivist vs. constructivist.

Seale (2010) tells us that the "counting" capabilities of CAQDAS software "is a reminder that the days of a great divide between qualitative and quantitative research work have now largely passed" (p. 255). And I am intrigued by Konopasek's comparison of Atlas.ti to a "textual laboratory." The metaphor literally co-opts the venue most commonly associated with scientific and positivist inquiry.

I am no statistician, but I like the way Atlas.ti enables the qualitative researcher to perform quantitative functions such as frequency counts and the "Word Cruncher," not as an end-all-be-all of analysis, but as a jumping off point for deeper exploration of connections, patterns, and new meanings.

For example, the first time I used the software, I ran a frequency count for a particular phrase in my transcripts just to confirm a hunch before I started coding.  I realize I could have used the "find" and "comment" tools in MSWord to perform these simple operations, but it was what I was able to do after coding that sets Atlas.ti apart from a word processor. I began looking for the co-occurrence of three specific a priori codes based on the TPACK framework (technology, pedagogy, and content).  Turns out, that didn't happen much in my transcripts, but Atlas.ti did help me to see more than twenty intersections between the "technology" and "pedagogy" codes.  This sent me down an altogether different and fruitful path of inquiry.

These previous experiences with Atlas.ti are the equivalent to running sprints. Now, after having received some guided, hands-on instruction, I have a clearer vision of how Atlas.ti. can function as an all-inclusive research notebook, containing fieldnotes, comments, memos, codes, and a seeming infinite variety of visual, textual, and statistical outputs generated by the researcher. I am ready to go the distance.

Share/Bookmark

July 25, 2011

More on Mendeley

from OpenClipArt.org
I've been tidying up my Mendeley library, checking on citation formats, organizing readings into folders, attaching my annotated PDFs, and experimenting with what happens to annotated Diigo web pages when added to the library.  (BTW: the Diigo/Mendeley part really works! I don't know why I am surprised by this, but I think this level of integration is cool!  For example, I accessed a recent column from The Chronicle of Higher Education, highlighted important points using Diigo, and then added the link to Mendeley.)

Other aspects of building the Mendeley library have not been so cool. I have tons of reading material related to my frameworks, previous coursework, and past lit reviews that I eventually want to add to Mendeley, but, for the time being, I decided to to focus on the material at hand: the several journal articles, research studies, and book chapters required for EP604, "Digital Tools for Qualitative Research."

Basically, I began by creating an EP604 folder inside Mendeley Desktop.  After I read and annotate an EP604 PDF using an iPad reader app, I "flatten" the annotated version and send it to my Dropbox, at which point I rename the PDF using a standard format of "author_year_annotated." From Dropbox, I can quickly add the PDF file to Mendeley Desktop.  (I will explain this process in more detail in a future post, including my final verdict on which iPad annotator I like the best.)

Once inside Mendeley Desktop, things aren't so efficient and seamless. I don't know if I am missing something, but I have found it necessary to manually add most of the information about each EP604 course document.  This takes as much time as if I was using any other citation management software, and my data input abilities are always error prone. Occasionally, the information for articles from online journals will automatically "pop up" in the reference fields, but more often than not, I must painstakingly enter the title in the right APA format, along with author, year, volume number, issue number, and so on.  

The automatic DOI search feature does work efficiently for filling in reference information for items with an available DOI.  But I can't for the life of me imagine why I would have the DOI number on hand, unless I locate the document myself on the Web, such as with Google Scholar or a library database. For the current task at hand, this represents a major duplication of effort, as all the course documents were supplied via the EP604 course management site.

Insofar as managing references, I obviously (and mistakenly) expected Mendeley to magically deliver me from the tedium of manual entry.  Clearly, I have to lower my expectations and take comfort in the fact that the time I invest now in maintaining my library will pay off later when I need to generate a list of works cited.

So, why use Mendeley at all?  Why not stick with Zotero, which I have used in the past, or try EndNote, which is supported by my university? Well, I am just deeply committed to this idea of controlling my own database both from within the cloud and locally on my computer, even if I have to pay a little extra for more server space. (I am currently using close to 15 percent of my free 500 MB after just two weeks.)  

More importantly, I am intrigued by the give-and-take between Internet as an act of research and Internet as source of research.  I am also curious about this persistent theme in EP604 that suggests digital technologies are supporting conventional research practices but also changing them.  I think Mendeley possibly exemplifies all of this.

The July 19 Mendeley webinar for educational researchers, for example, emphasized that Mendeley was more than a citation manager.  The presenter referred to it as  "a crowd-sourced, publicly searched catalog of research." The Mendeley web client functions as a "collaborative platform." As researchers search for, share, and retrieve data, Mendeley aggregates the "community's processes," supplying readership statistics and disciplinary trends back to its members.

Moreover, according to its developers, Mendeley is highly individualized to fit the "idiosyncratic processes of researchers."  It supposedly has seven different ways to add documents and is compatible with more than a 1000 citation styles!

As I listened, I wondered about Mendeley as a place for self-publishing and dissemination of research.  If the Mendeley community were to grow exponentially, becoming some sort of scholarly version of Facebook, would community members simply bypass the "old guard" of peer-reviewed research journals? Talk about changed practices!

I would love to continue to explore these big ideas, but for my EP604 skill-building project, I also need to attend to some practical concerns that have come up for me in recent days:  
  • If there are indeed seven different ways to add docs to Mendeley, perhaps I need to keep practicing until I find the most efficient way?
  • I am interested in the TPACK framework for technology and teacher education.  I want to find out if there is a Mendeley group for TPACK.  If not, should I start one?
  • Would it be possible to integrate Mendeley with this blog in some way?  Is that advisable? Does Mendeley provide member badges? It's worth a look-see. . . .

Share/Bookmark

EP604 skill-building activities

Here are my two ideas for skill-building projects in EP604:
  • Mendeley  I will complete my profile, join some public groups (perhaps?), build and organize my library, and figure out the best way (that works for me) to upload, store, and share annotated PDFs.  If I have time, I would like to compare Mendeley to Zotero, which I used last year on a collaborative lit review about podcasting.  I haven't played with Zotero in a while. I see this project as supporting my personal goal to go paperless this year. See Working with Mendeley and More on Mendeley for my current reflections on this project.
  • Inqscribe  I will use this tool to complete transcription for a study on the use of eBooks during Kindergarten literacy instruction. This project will challenge my skills at reflexivity because the lead investigator on the study has not prescribed a format for the transcripts.  As I teach myself how to create "shortcuts" and "snippets" with Inqscribe, I will also have to use my developing expertise about the transcription process to figure out how to accurately and adequately represent the essence of children's emergent readings. This is crucial, as the data will be interpreted to determine what impact exposure to eBooks had on their developing literacy.

Share/Bookmark

July 21, 2011

Reflection on transcription in the digital age

Several course readings this week focused on the researcher's act of transcription and the impact of digital tools on this process.  As I read, I was reminded of a central question posed by Brown (2002):
Where might we explore the potential of digital convergence in ways that provide catalysts to individual creativity, plurality of thought and representation, and at the same time benefit from the obvious efficiency gains from using the computer as a digital hub for the entire research process?
In his side-by-side comparison of the listen-and-type method versus voice recognition software, Johnson (2011) provides a good example of what Brown's question might look like in practice. Johnson's research note is a measured and systematic exploration of the affordances and constraints of a new technology. Despite his strange conclusions about hiring a graduate student to "intelligently transcribe" using a combination of both approaches (p. 96), Johnson provides a service to researchers who might be curious about voice recognition software but who don't have the time or the means to take the plunge.

Regarding the ability of voice recognition software to ease "mental comfort," Johnson said, "My initial amazement at the software's work quickly wore off and I found both means of transcription equally dull" (p. 95). You have to wonder that if transcription is indeed the qualitative researcher's first interpretive act, then why is he so bored with his own data? Nonetheless, his findings underscore that "new and digital" does not always equate to "better and more efficient." 
 
Putting aside the as-yet-unproven voice recognition software, computers have made a significant impact on the listen-and-type method. If used judiciously and reflexively, digital tools for transcription can live up to Brown's standard of improving efficiency while supporting flexible, open-ended, and inductive inquiry.  For example, it is possible do download audio files from a digital microrecorder into transcription software on the computer and listen and type in one integrated interface using keystrokes to pause, rewind, and so on. This is hugely efficient in itself, as it is now easy and inexpensive to archive, share, and transport digitized transcripts.

But my big take-away this week is learning that certain software, particularly Inqscribe, will allow me to synchronize my subsequent readings of the transcripts with the audio, something I have never tried to do systematically.  I created the transcripts, and then the audio files went into a folder, never to be heard from again. Because I was never meticulous enough to manually insert timestamps into the transcripts, it was always tedious and cumbersome to locate a specific excerpt in the audio when I had to.  Inqscribe enables timestamping with two keystrokes, and when clicked, the timestamp takes you to the precise location within the audio.  I am looking forward to trying this function in upcoming transcription projects.

Share/Bookmark

July 19, 2011

More thoughts on blogs as research tools

I am beginning to wrap my brain around the idea of "Internet research."  I am also refining and clarifying my vision for this blog as "research tool," a process I started to explore in an earlier post.

What is Internet research? It could mean two things. There is a distinction between gathering data through the Internet (email, videoconferencing, discussion groups) versus gathering data about the Internet (crowd sourcing, marketing analytics, "trending," and so on).

In other words, the Internet functions as both a method and object of study. As diverse approaches for studying the Internet flourish (Dominguez et al. 2007), the Internet gives rise to new approaches for studying the offline world as well.  Dominguez et al. claim this diversity is the result of "the way in which the Internet is conceptualized as both culture and context for social interaction."

Of course, in a very Marshall McLuhan sort of way, there is no clear distinction. I may choose a face-to-face, "real world" research context, but with the constant proliferation of digital tools in contemporary society being what it is, it would be foolish to ignore "the current blending of offline and online worlds" (Garcia et al., 2009, p. 53).  As such, I must remain consistently reflexive of the influence of digital technologies on my everyday practices as a student and novice researcher, regardless of my research context.

It's time to review "The Machine is Us/ing Us."


To take this one step further, I was struck by Dr. Paulus' comment in class last night that researchers tend "to put the practice first, then choose the tool." The same can be said about educators. For a long time, the conventional wisdom in K-12 education was that content and pedagogy should drive teachers' decision making around the integration of technology. But what if the pedagogy and the theory stagnates or fails to keep pace with the technology? We are prevented from envisioning and leveraging new pedagogies -- and new research practices -- that never would have been possible without the new tools.

Thus, the traditional lecture format is "transformed" by presentation and slide software, with the phenomenon of death by PowerPoint following soon after. Similarly, O'Connor (2008) claims a similar lack of inspiration exists among online researchers, who "have done little more than transfer traditional, and in some cases outdated, approaches to a new arena" (p. 281).

People across all sectors of society, public and private, are beginning to rethink common, everyday practices in light of Web 2.0 tools.  In a recent online column Daniel Pink called it flip-thinking, in which digital technology "melts calcified thinking and leads to solutions that are simple to envision and to implement."  Pink described the work of U.S. educator Karl Fisch, who assigns YouTube lectures as homework. The Kahn Academy is another example.

I am curious about how "the tools are enabling new research practices," as Dr. Paulus said. I would like to continue to explore this idea, particularly as it relates to the blog as a writing repository documenting the research process and as a venue of reflexive practice for the researcher.

Specifically, I want to learn more about:
  • The blog as a "methodological strategy for research" (Wakeford & Cohen, 2008, p. 311)
  • Sharing research with participants--But how to get them to read it??
  • Using a blog to expose the process of doing research 
  • "Compensating for the relative isolation of graduate work" (p. 312) 
  • Better organization of ("tagging") fieldnotes, possibly using Richardson's typology in the 1994 version of her essay "Writing: A Method of Inquiry" (if I can get my hands on it!!!)
  • Gregg's (2006) idea of blogs as "conversational scholarship"

Share/Bookmark

July 14, 2011

Paperless, Part I

By hook or by crook, by laptop or by handheld, I'm going paperless.  

At the outset of my third year of doctoral studies, I get knots in my stomach when I look at the accumulation of books flagged with sticky notes and the crates of binders overloaded with highlighted articles, conference papers, and research studies. 
So, paperless academic reading is my latest "new routine." But I'm taking baby steps, starting with one class. This summer in EP604, I will not print a single page of the assigned journal articles or book chapters  -- not one page of the 521 pages of required reading. (That's more than a ream of single-sided copies.)

Instead, I am downloading the digital files from our course website into an application for reading and annotating PDFs. Then, I am "flattening" and exporting the marked-up PDFs to my virtual library, which, for the moment, is housed at Mendeley.com. (See also my post Working with Mendeley.) Mendeley is a web-based personal citation and reference manager that enables users to store their research documents on remote servers, or "in the cloud."  That means I can access my personal collection of EP604 course readings anytime, anywhere, provided I have a reliable Internet connection and web browser.

Let's be honest here.  Cloud computing may sound all warm and fuzzy and environmentally conscious.  But this is not about saving trees. For me, at least, it's about saving my sanity.

Anyone (read:  "any sleep-deprived graduate student") who has desperately thumbed through stacks of paper at 2 a.m., searching for that singular, seminal piece of writing -- that 37-page, heavily annotated and many-times-read journal article -- only to realize she has left the printout on her desk at school, can understand the value of the "cloud."
Managing one's resources in graduate school has surely never been easy. Now, ironically, digital and web-based technologies provide greater ease and efficiency with which to gather mass amounts of information, while making it more difficult to stay organized. According to Anderson and Kanuka, authors of E-Research: Methods, Strategies and Issues, "...[T]he amount of valuable research information available 'anywhere/anytime' continues to grow," and more time is needed for "assessing relevance and veracity" (2003, pp. 41-42).

When one factors in Hart's assertion that the graduate student "is expected to search more widely, across disciplines, and in greater detail than at undergraduate level" (1999, p. 9), there is major imperative for adopting and refining the practice of reading in digital and online environments.

In sum, my tools for converting to paperless are (so far): 
  • citation management software (Mendeley is one example, but I would like to compare it later to Zotero.)
  • a PDF annotator
  • Dropbox.com
What other tools might I consider?  And, more importantly, what is the value-added of going paperless and what are the costs?  I will explore these questions in future posts.

Share/Bookmark

Working with Mendeley

I attended a webinar this week to learn more about the personal citation manager Mendeley, which I have started using this week (with mixed results, so far). I established an account and user profile at the Mendeley website, and I downloaded the desktop application to my PC, which syncs with the web account. I also installed the mobile Mendeley Lite app on an iPad.


In an effort to go "paperless" this academic year (more on this later), I was especially motivated to try the desktop version of Mendeley, which provides highlighter and note tools. Yet, after reading and marking up one PDF file, I could not successfully save or export the file with its annotations. Each time I attempt to do this, the application crashes and closes. Consequently, I cannot see my annotations anywhere except locally on my own laptop within the Mendeley Desktop environment.  They do not appear inside the library within the Mendeley "cloud," and the cloud, according to today's webinar presenter, is just what makes Mendeley so special!

Meanwhile, I have not been able to explore the functionality of MendeleyLite because it continually crashes on my iPad.

Frustration! 

I suspect the problem with Desktop relates to different versions of PDFs, depending on when and how the file specifications were generated.  But I really don't have the time nor the inclination to explore the issue in-depth. At any rate, I have already located a handful of other PDF readers/annotators that upload reliably to Dropbox, enabling me to then download my marked-up pages to the Mendeley library.

Still, out of curiosity, I raised the issue during the Mendeley webinar and was pleased with the timely manner in which the presenter responded. But she didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, except to contact support, which I have done.

The overall purpose of the Mendeley webinar was to provide a broad overview of its features. I learned about some new tricks I can do with my Mendeley reference library, such as:
  • Synch with my account in Zotero, another web-based citation manager
  • Create "watch" folders on my desktop that synch with Mendeley each time I add new content
  • Use the document identifying number (DOI) to fill in missing information on a resource
On a broader scale, I can view and sometimes access what others are reading within the Mendeley community, which numbers in the millions. I can also connect with other researchers in my discipline who share my interests, thanks to a variety of social networking features the Mendeley developers added.  

This is what Hensley (2011) was referring to when she described the development of Mendeley as " a clear indication of the future direction for research tools." According to Hensley, developers will continue "to look for ways to embed the organization of research materials, add social collaboration features, and incorporate compatibility with smartphones and tablet technology."

Mendeley, it seems, exemplifies the  "potential of digital convergence" that Brown described back in 2002 in his article "Going Digital and Staying Qualitative."

It sounds great. It really does. But for now, all I want is a citation manager that does double-duty as an e-reading utility, or that at least "plays nice" with the other tools in my digital toolbox.  

Share/Bookmark

July 12, 2011

Re-purposing this blog as a reflective research journal

from OpenClipArt
Over the last several months I have struggled with writing my final representation of fieldwork for a year-long ethnography course that ended in May 2011. At my instructor’s behest, I am rewriting sections of my findings to include “more of me.” It’s uncomfortable, unfamiliar territory, and navigating it would have been so much easier had I had the discipline and foresight to keep a daily -- or, at least weekly -- reflective journal, such as the one described by Watt (2007).

Lesson learned.

Soon, I will embark on a new research journey, a pilot study of literacy teachers learning “new” digital literacies such as podcasting and digital storytelling as alternative formats for case study representation. Pending IRB approval, the study will begin in fall 2011.

The journal begins today.

I am dusting off this old blog and re-purposing it as a reflexive research journal. I am not sure of all the implications of this, especially since I have not yet fully formed my research design or invited participants to the study. But I am excited at the prospect of breathing new life into this blog. Even if I only use it to document "tasks, events, and actions," as LaBanca did (2011, p. 1164), it will be worth it. After my most recent academic writing experience, I am invigorated by the thought of having a "permanent record" and "memory prompt" (Watt, p. 83).

I started this blog in 2007 as a master's student in Instructional Technology. At the time, it was a place to document and reflect on what I was learning about web-based technologies and social media and how it all related back to my interests in language arts instruction, adolescent literacy, and 21st century classrooms.

Periodically, I have returned to the blog, mostly to model reflective practice and to engage with students in the technology course I sometimes teach.

Sadly, I have not used the blog at all in relation to my work as a PhD student in reading education. This was not a conscious choice or decision, just the result of the rigors and cognitive mayhem imposed by a graduate-level workload and a full and happy home life. I couldn't figure out how to fit it in. I'm still not sure how it's going to fit, excepting for the fact that I am required to post at least twice a week in connection with a course I am currently taking this summer titled "Digital tools for qualitative research."

Over the last four years, this blog has had three different names, two different hosts, and more different themes, templates, and header designs than I can count, but my core interests and passions have remained unchanged. Despite the long periods of inactivity, I am excited to keep past, present, and future posts together under one digital "roof," a document of my growth and development as a teacher/learner (and, now, "researcher").

Over the next several weeks in connection with coursework in EP 604, I hope to sort out some of my questions about using a blog as a reflexive research journal.

Primarily, I am wondering about audience and feedback, once peer and instructor support of EP 604 goes away. Perhaps it doesn't matter; I will surely benefit, as did Watt, from the "generative nature of this practice" (p. 83) regardless of readership. But then why choose an open and accessible medium -- a blog -- to begin with? Why not use a word processor and create a digital journal right on my computer desktop? And, assuming I secure the permission of participants for my hoped-for pilot study, what impact will my online, reflective writing have on them? More importantly, how do I encourage them to join me? How do I build a community of practice around this blog?
Share/Bookmark