A fictional research team collected open-ended responses to the question "Is there anything about daily life at the moment that you find difficult to put a name to?" Six of them are below. They have not been coded, grouped or tidied. This is the whole of what exists before the category does.
All six are invented for teaching. No real respondent, dataset, survey or published category is reproduced.
Nothing here changes the controls for you, and none of it says what you are going to find.
The category you are building stays at the top of the panel and fills in as you go. You can go back at any point, and going back is where most of the learning is.
| Feature | In the 6 | In 6 comparisons | Distinguishing? |
|---|
| Band | People | Share |
|---|
| Account | Items it would endorse | Detected? |
|---|
| Features required | Prevalence |
|---|
Each of these could be written about the category you have just built. Decide what each one is: a finding, a decision reported as a finding, or a claim the work cannot support at all.
Reification is usually taught as an attitude — treating an abstraction as a thing — and left there. Here it has steps you can point at: selecting features fixed what would count, naming imported a frame and an expert, a threshold turned a continuum into two kinds of people, and an instrument made the category prior to the experience it came from. Nobody was careless and nothing new was discovered.