|
Top-level
 Assuming that "medium" is logarithmic, i.e. about 1000 or so users, there are a few hundreds of these - so you presumably intend to subsample these medium-sized instances, e.g. aim at 10-20 interviews. Splitting up into e.g. 5-10 medium and 5-10 small instances would increase the sample error and bias, as @jcolomb said, but also increase the chance of better studying all scales: big + medium + small. The risk of the big crushing the small seems like a significant governance question. 6 comments
 @mejofi @boud @jcolomb It just occurred to me that we might not be talking on similar terms here: for me the break point for "medium" is about 150 people, where it is unlikely for everyone to know everyone else. Because to me that is a place where governance mechanisms become necessary rather than just a good idea. I talk about this in https://runyourown.social Re: the American thing, it's a valid criticism and I am trying to be mindful of my biases. We want an international sample for sure. |
Gregory's Server
@boud @darius @jcolomb I would also argue that a ‘medium and large’ runs a significant risk of skewing heavily white, and mostly male.
Plus the fact that it’s folks from the US, with US money, on a network that for once isn’t as dominated by American interests and governance as almost everything that came before.