Sociology of Soccer

Just Another Sociology Blog of Dr. Stephan Pflaum

X. Grounded Theory — From Text to Talk (90 Minutes)

Grounded Theory in the Wild: Learning Sociology Through Football Fandom

Teaser

You’ve written your GT analysis—codes, categories, theoretical integration, literature dialogue. Now comes the moment of truth: presenting to an audience. Whether defending your thesis, presenting at a conference, or sharing findings with participants, oral presentation reveals whether you truly understand your own theory. Can you explain your analytic journey without reading your slides? Can you visualize complex coding processes so non-GT audiences grasp your method? Can you respond to “but how do you know?” without becoming defensive? Today you’ll learn GT-specific presentation strategies: creating visual representations of inductive logic, storytelling techniques that make emergence comprehensible, and defensive strategies for the inevitable “isn’t this just Bourdieu?” question. This is where theoretical confidence meets performance skill.

Methods Window

Methodological Foundation: Presenting GT differs from presenting hypothesis-testing research. Deductive studies follow predictable narrative: hypothesis → test → confirm/disconfirm → discuss. GT presentations must convey process—how theory emerged iteratively from data. This requires different visual strategies (showing analytic journey, not just conclusions) and different defensive strategies (demonstrating groundedness, not proving truth).

The Presentation Challenge: Audiences unfamiliar with GT often ask misguided questions (“Where’s your hypothesis?” “Why so few interviews?” “Isn’t this just anecdotal?”). Your task: educate about GT logic while defending your specific study. This requires balancing methodological pedagogy with substantive contribution.

Three Presentation Goals:

  1. Methodological credibility: Show GT was done rigorously (not “I interviewed people and noticed patterns”)
  2. Substantive insight: Communicate what you discovered about the phenomenon
  3. Theoretical contribution: Position findings within sociological discourse

Assessment Target: BA Sociology (7th semester) — Goal grade: 1.3 (Sehr gut). By lesson end, you’ll create a GT presentation slide deck, practice explaining your core category conversationally, and develop response strategies for common challenging questions.

Data & Ethics: When presenting, protect participant confidentiality even more carefully than in writing—voices and images make identification easier. Use pseudonyms consistently; if showing photos/video, obtain explicit presentation consent.

Lesson 10 Structure (90 Minutes)

Part 1: Input — GT Presentation Architecture (20 minutes)

Slide Structure for GT Presentations

Traditional presentation structure (deductive):

  1. Introduction/Background
  2. Hypothesis
  3. Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion/Conclusion

GT presentation structure (inductive):

  1. The Puzzle (1-2 slides): Why this phenomenon matters sociologically
  2. The Approach (2-3 slides): GT methodology overview + your specific implementation
  3. The Journey (3-4 slides): Visual representation of analytic process
  4. The Discovery (4-6 slides): Core category + key dimensions
  5. The Contribution (2-3 slides): Theoretical positioning
  6. The Implications (1-2 slides): Future research + practical applications

Total: 13-18 slides for 20-minute presentation (includes title, references)

Key Principle: Show, don’t just tell. GT is visual—use diagrams, process flowcharts, category maps.

Slide-by-Slide Strategy

SLIDE 1: Title

  • Your name, institution
  • Title that captures core category (not generic “A Grounded Theory Study of…”)
  • Example: “Defending the Curve: Identity Work in Threatened Fan Communities”

SLIDES 2-3: The Puzzle

  • Slide 2: Concrete scene/quote that illustrates the phenomenon
    • Photo (if permitted) or evocative description
    • Example: Image of tifo display with caption: “50,000 fans, one choreographed message: ‘This is our club.’ Why such elaborate performances of belonging?”
  • Slide 3: Sociological significance
    • Brief literature context (2-3 bullet points)
    • Gap/puzzle your GT addresses
    • Example: “Scholars study fan identity (Giulianotti 2002), commercialization (Numerato 2018), but less on identity defense processes when communities face threats”

SLIDES 4-6: The Approach

  • Slide 4: What is GT? (brief, visual)
    • “Inductive methodology: theory emerges from systematic data analysis”
    • Simple diagram showing data → codes → categories → theory
    • Key principle: Constant comparison (every new data compared to prior)
  • Slide 5: Your data
    • Table format: | DATA TYPE | N | TIMEFRAME ||---------------------|-----|----------------|| Semi-structured | 12 | Oct-Dec 2024 || interviews | | || Match observations | 8 | Oct 2024- || | | Jan 2025 || Forum posts | 15 | Nov-Dec 2024 || analyzed | | |
    • Participant demographics (brief—age range, roles)
  • Slide 6: Quality assurance (builds credibility)
    • Bullet points: Theoretical sampling, saturation achieved, member checking, 47 analytic memos
    • Visual: Simple checkmarks next to quality criteria met

SLIDES 7-10: The Journey (CRITICAL FOR GT)

This is where GT presentations diverge most from traditional research. You must show how theory emerged.

  • Slide 7: Open coding example
    • Screenshot or recreation of field notes with codes in margin
    • Example: Field note: "Max arrived 90 minutes early, → Marking temporal claimed 'his' spot in Curve, greeted commitmentthree regulars by name without → Claiming territoryconversation." → Building recognition without intimacy
    • Caption: “Initial open coding: fragmenting data into concepts”
  • Slide 8: From codes to categories
    • Visual showing multiple codes clustering into category
    • Example diagram: CODES: CATEGORY:• Transmitting loyalty ━┓• Claiming territory ━┫• Building recognition ━╋━━→ ENACTING AUTHENTIC• Correcting newcomers ━┫ MEMBERSHIP• Displaying knowledge ━┫• Performing endurance ━┛
    • Caption: “Axial coding: discovering patterns across codes”
  • Slide 9: Theoretical sampling in action
    • Flowchart showing iterative process
    • Example: Initial interviews (n=3) → "Authenticity via attendance" ↓Theoretical question: Does this apply to fans who can't afford tickets? ↓Sample economically precarious fans (n=3) → Discover knowledge-based authenticity alternative ↓Theoretical question: Class stratification in authenticity criteria? ↓Sample across class positions (n=6) → Map dimensions ↓Saturation: Final 3 interviews confirm dimensions, no new properties
  • Slide 10: Integration diagram (your Lesson 5 work)
    • Visual showing core category in center with related categories around it
    • Use arrows showing relationships
    • Color-code: conditions (one color), strategies (another), consequences (third)
    • This slide is the payoff—audience sees the whole theory at once

SLIDES 11-16: The Discovery

  • Slide 11: Core category statement
    • Large text, centered: Your core category name
    • Subtitle: One-sentence storyline
    • Example: DEFENDING COLLECTIVE IDENTITY UNDER THREATWhen external forces threaten subcultural autonomy,communities intensify authenticity performances,producing solidarity and exclusion simultaneously
  • Slides 12-15: Key dimensions (one dimension per slide)
    • Each slide develops one major finding
    • Structure per slide:
      • Heading: Dimension name
      • Definition: What is this? (2-3 sentences)
      • Quote: One powerful participant quote (3-5 lines max)
      • Analysis: Your interpretation (2-3 bullet points)
      • Visual: Diagram or image if relevant
    • Example Slide 12: AUTHENTICITY THROUGH EMBODIED PRESENCE Fans distinguish "real supporters" from "tourists" through continuous physical attendance and endurance (standing 90 minutes, regardless of weather/score). "You can always tell the tourists—they sit down after 60 minutes, on their phones. We stay until final whistle, no matter what." —Max, 42 • Authenticity = accumulated temporal investment • Body as site of identity demonstration • Creates class barrier (attendance requires resources)
  • Slide 16: The paradox/tension (if your theory has one)
    • GT often reveals contradictions—highlight them
    • Example: THE SOLIDARITY-EXCLUSION PARADOXIdentity defense produces:✓ Strong in-group cohesion (shared purpose, collective pride)✗ Exclusionary boundaries (class, gender, age stratification)Fans resist corporate exclusion while reproducing social exclusion—defending "authentic community" undermines inclusivity

SLIDES 17-18: The Contribution

  • Slide 17: Theoretical positioning (your Lesson 9 work)
    • Three bullet points showing extend/challenge/synthesize
    • Example: THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONSExtends Bourdieu: Cultural capital as defensive resource, not just distinction mechanismChallenges Goffman: Identity performance requires collective coordination, not just individual dramaturgySynthesizes Durkheim + Weber: Ritual solidarity AND strategic rationality operate simultaneously
  • Slide 18: Scope conditions
    • When/where does this theory apply?
    • Bullet points or simple table
    • Example: This theory applies when:• Communities have strong collective identity with historical continuity• External forces threaten autonomy• Members possess cultural resources for boundary workMay not apply when:• Communities are newly formed• Changes perceived as internal/organic• Virtual contexts (no embodied dimension)

SLIDES 19-20: The Implications

  • Slide 19: Future research
    • 3-4 specific questions your GT generates
    • Example: • How do threatened communities with limited cultural capital defend identity?• Does digital football fandom show similar patterns?• What happens when identity defense fails?
  • Slide 20: Practical implications (if relevant)
    • For practitioners, policymakers, or participants
    • Example: • Clubs: Recognize fan resistance as identity defense, not irrational opposition to progress• Policymakers: Commercialization policies have cultural consequences beyond economics• Fans: Awareness of exclusionary dynamics could inform inclusive organizing

SLIDE 21: References

  • Key citations only (5-8 most important)
  • Full reference list available in written report

Visual Design Principles

  1. Minimal text: 5-7 lines per slide maximum (you speak the rest)
  2. Visual hierarchy: Large headings, clear structure, white space
  3. Consistent scheme: Choose 2-3 colors, use throughout
  4. Images sparingly: Only if they genuinely illustrate concepts (not decorative)
  5. Diagrams > tables: Visual representations more engaging than data tables
  6. Font readability: Large enough for back of room (minimum 24pt for body text)

The 1-Minute Test

For each slide, ask: “If audience only saw this slide for 60 seconds with no narration, would they grasp the key point?” If no, simplify.

Part 2: Hands-On Exercise — Creating & Rehearsing Presentation (50 minutes)

Materials Needed:

  • Your core category, integration diagram, and key quotes
  • Laptop/tablet for slide creation (or paper for storyboarding)
  • Example GT presentation slides (instructor projects)

Exercise Structure:

(20 min) Individual: Slide Storyboarding

You won’t create a full presentation in 20 minutes, but you’ll storyboard key slides:

Task: Create rough drafts (sketches or bullet outlines) for these 5 critical slides:

  1. Puzzle slide: Your opening scene/quote that hooks audience
  2. Analytic journey slide: Visual showing how you got from codes to categories
  3. Core category slide: Your main theoretical statement with storyline
  4. Best evidence slide: One finding with participant quote + your analysis
  5. Contribution slide: Your extend/challenge/synthesize positioning

Format options:

  • Digital: Use PowerPoint/Keynote/Google Slides (quick draft mode)
  • Analog: Sketch on paper with labels for text/images/diagrams

Instructor circulates with prompts:

  • “What’s the ONE thing you want audience to remember from this slide?”
  • “Can you replace any text with a visual?”
  • “If you only had 30 seconds to explain this slide, what would you say?”

(15 min) Trio Micro-Presentations

Groups of three. Each person presents their 5 storyboarded slides (4 min each + 1 min feedback).

Presentation task:

  • Stand (even in small group—practice performance posture)
  • Talk through your 5 slides WITHOUT READING THEM
  • Make eye contact with your small audience
  • Use hand gestures to point to elements on slides

Audience feedback (1 min per presenter):

  • One strength: What worked really well?
  • One clarity question: What wasn’t clear?
  • One suggestion: How could one slide be stronger?

Common issues instructor watches for:

  • Reading slides: Prompt: “Slides are notes for you, not script for audience”
  • Too much text: Prompt: “Cut this in half—what’s essential?”
  • Jargon overload: Prompt: “Explain this to your non-sociologist friend”
  • Monotone delivery: Prompt: “Where’s your enthusiasm? You discovered something!”

(10 min) Q&A Strategy Workshop

Still in trios. Instructor provides common challenging questions for GT presentations. Trios collaboratively develop responses.

Challenging Question 1: “How can you make claims from only 12 interviews? That’s not representative.”

Strong response strategy:

  • Acknowledge: “You’re right that 12 interviews can’t represent all football fans statistically.”
  • Reframe: “But GT doesn’t aim for statistical representation—it aims for theoretical saturation. I sampled until categories showed stable properties and dimensions.”
  • Evidence: “My final three interviews revealed no new patterns, suggesting saturation.”
  • Contrast: “Rather than asking ‘how many fans think X?’, GT asks ‘what process produces X, and under what conditions?’”

Challenging Question 2: “Isn’t this just Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory applied to football?”

Strong response strategy:

  • Acknowledge resonance: “Bourdieu’s framework definitely informed my theoretical sensitivity—cultural capital is clearly relevant here.”
  • State contribution: “But my GT revealed a dimension Bourdieu didn’t address: cultural capital as defensive resource, not just distinction mechanism.”
  • Specify: “Bourdieu focused on stable class reproduction. My threatened communities use capital differently—to protect boundaries, not climb hierarchies.”
  • Evidence: “This only became visible through inductive analysis—I didn’t set out to ‘apply Bourdieu.’”

Challenging Question 3: “Your findings seem obvious—of course fans perform identity. What’s new here?”

Strong response strategy:

  • Resist defensiveness: “That’s actually a sign good GT resonates with lived experience!”
  • Specify novelty: “But what wasn’t obvious before my study: the conditions intensifying performance (commercialization threats), the dimensions of performance (temporal, embodied, affective), and the consequences (simultaneous solidarity and exclusion).”
  • Theoretical significance: “This moves beyond ‘identity is performed’ (we knew that) to ‘identity performance intensifies under specific structural conditions’—that’s the theoretical advance.”

Trio task: Practice responding to one question each. Rotate questioner role. Critique each other’s responses:

  • Did you stay calm and professional?
  • Did you educate without condescension?
  • Did you defend your work without being defensive?
  • Did you provide evidence, not just assertion?

(5 min) Plenary: The Confidence-Humility Balance

Instructor facilitates:

Question: “How do you present confidently without sounding arrogant? You’re a student claiming theoretical contributions—how do you navigate that?”

Guided discussion:

  • Arrogance: “My study proves X” / “I’ve revolutionized understanding of Y” / “Previous research was wrong”
  • False humility: “This is just a small study” / “I don’t really know anything” / “It’s probably not important”
  • Appropriate confidence: “My GT reveals X, which extends existing theory by Y” / “This suggests Z, though further research would strengthen the claim” / “My findings indicate…”

Instructor: “You did rigorous work. Trust it. But acknowledge scope limits and invite dialogue—scholarship is conversation, not pronouncement.”

Part 3: Defense Simulation & Final Reflection (20 minutes)

(12 min) Mock Thesis Defense (Whole Class)

Instructor selects 2-3 volunteers for brief mock defense (3-4 min each):

Setup:

  • Volunteer presents their core category slide + one evidence slide (2 min)
  • Instructor + 2-3 students role-play thesis committee asking pointed questions
  • Volunteer responds (1 min per question)
  • Class observes and notes effective/ineffective strategies

Sample defense exchange (fictional):

Presenter: “My core category is Defending Collective Identity Under Threat. When commercialization threatens fan autonomy, authenticity performances intensify.”

Questioner 1 (methodological skeptic): “You claim saturation after 12 interviews. How do you know interview 13 wouldn’t have revealed something totally different?”

Presenter response: “I reached saturation when the final three interviews confirmed existing category properties without revealing new dimensions. My memos from interview 10 onward show I was predicting patterns accurately—a sign saturation was approaching. However, you’re right that I can’t prove interview 13 wouldn’t surprise me. GT saturation is pragmatic judgment, not absolute certainty. That’s why I specify scope conditions—my theory applies to [contexts X, Y], but further research should test [context Z].”

Questioner 2 (theoretical critic): “You say you ‘extend’ Bourdieu, but it sounds like you just found cultural capital in another context. What’s theoretically novel?”

Presenter response: “The novelty is showing cultural capital operates differently under threat. Bourdieu analyzed stable class reproduction where capital facilitates upward mobility. My threatened fan communities use capital defensively—not to climb hierarchies but to protect boundaries. This suggests cultural capital theory needs refinement: capital’s function varies by structural conditions. That’s not just finding capital in new context—it’s revealing condition-dependent mechanisms.”

Questioner 3 (scope clarification): “Your theory emerged from German football. How do I know it applies to, say, American sports fandom or non-Western contexts?”

Presenter response: “Great question—transferability is always key concern with GT. My theory likely applies when three conditions hold: strong collective identity, external threats, and available cultural resources for boundary work. American sports may share these—think of ‘real’ basketball fans vs. casual viewers. But non-Western contexts need testing, especially where collective identity formation differs. That’s why I present this as substantive theory with formal potential—it needs comparative validation.”

Class debrief after each volunteer:

  • What worked in the response?
  • What could be stronger?
  • How did body language/tone affect credibility?

(8 min) Final Reflection & Takeaways

Individual reflection (write 3-5 sentences), then pair sharing:

Reflection prompts:

  1. Presentation anxiety: What aspect of presenting GT feels most challenging? (Explaining methodology? Defending small sample? Positioning theoretical contribution?)
  2. Your strengths: What aspect of your GT work are you most confident presenting?
  3. Preparation needs: What do you need to practice most before your actual presentation/defense?

Instructor closing:

“Presenting GT is performance—it requires practice. Your first thesis defense won’t be perfect. But remember: you know your research better than anyone in the room. Your committee/audience is genuinely interested in what you discovered. They’re asking hard questions because they want to understand, not because they want you to fail.

Three final tips:

  1. Slow down: Nervous presenters rush. Pause after making a point. Let ideas land.
  2. Welcome questions: ‘That’s a great question’ buys you 3 seconds to think and signals respect.
  3. It’s okay to not know: ‘That’s an excellent direction for future research’ is legitimate answer.”

Sociology Brain Teasers

  1. Reflexive Question: You present your GT with confidence, defending categories as “grounded in data.” But aren’t you just performing scholarly competence? How is your presentation different from fans performing authenticity?
  2. Micro-Level Provocation: Your presentation simplifies the messy analytic process into clean slides showing codes→categories→theory. Does this pedagogical clarity betray GT’s actual iterative chaos? Are you performing linearity that didn’t exist?
  3. Meso-Level Question: You defend your study in front of a committee with power over your grade/degree. How does this power dynamic shape what counts as “good defense”? Could brilliant GT be failed by committee members unfamiliar with inductive logic?
  4. Macro-Level Challenge: Academic presentations privilege certain communication styles (confident assertion, quick response, theoretical fluency). Do these norms disadvantage researchers from cultures with different communication practices? Is GT’s presentation culture culturally specific?
  5. Methodological Debate: You create visually appealing slides to engage audience. But Glaser would argue GT should present theory abstractly, not with evocative quotes and images. Does your presentation sacrifice theoretical parsimony for rhetorical effect?
  6. Pedagogical Puzzle: You’re taught to “educate audience about GT” during presentation. But isn’t that condescending—assuming your audience doesn’t understand methodology? When does explanation become patronizing?
  7. Performance Ethics: You select your “best” quotes for presentation—most articulate participants, most vivid examples. Does this systematically privilege certain voices while marginalizing others (less articulate, less dramatic experiences)?
  8. Defense Paradox: Thesis defense asks you to confidently defend interpretations while demonstrating scholarly humility and openness to critique. How do you simultaneously “stand by your findings” and “acknowledge they’re contestable”? Is this performative contradiction?

Hypotheses

[HYPOTHESE 19] GT presentations that include visual representations of the analytic process (coding examples, integration diagrams) will receive higher audience comprehension ratings than presentations that only present final theoretical conclusions.

Operationalization hint: Experimental study with video-recorded GT presentations (N=40 student presentations). Randomly assign viewers (N=200 sociology students/faculty) to watch one presentation. Condition A presentations include 3-4 slides showing analytic journey (codes, categories, integration). Condition B presentations show only final theory. After viewing, viewers complete comprehension quiz (10 questions about methodology and findings) and rate “confidence in findings” (1-10 scale). Predict Condition A scores higher on both measures because process transparency builds credibility and aids understanding. Tests whether GT’s distinctive feature—showing emergence—actually improves communication effectiveness.

[HYPOTHESE 20] Presenters who practice responding to challenging questions aloud (rehearsal condition) will provide more structured, evidence-based responses during actual Q&A than presenters who only mentally prepare (control condition).

Operationalization hint: Experimental design with student GT presentations (N=50). Random assignment: Rehearsal condition = students practice answering 10 common GT questions aloud with peer feedback (3 sessions). Control condition = students read list of questions and think about responses. Actual presentations video-recorded. Blind raters assess Q&A responses on: structure (1-5 scale: rambling to organized), evidence-use (1-5 scale: assertion-only to data-backed), confidence (1-5 scale: defensive to appropriately confident). Predict rehearsal condition scores significantly higher across all dimensions. Tests whether performance practice improves scholarly communication—relevant for pedagogy of oral defense preparation.

Transparency & AI Disclosure

This lesson was collaboratively developed by human sociologist-educator Stephan and Claude (Anthropic, Sonnet 4.5). The human author defined pedagogical objectives (oral presentation competency, visual communication of inductive logic, Q&A defensive strategies), specified presentation architecture (puzzle-approach-journey-discovery-contribution-implications structure with 18-21 slide framework), and set assessment standards (BA 7th semester, 1.3 grade). Claude generated lesson content including detailed slide-by-slide guidance with fictional examples, visual design principles, analytic journey representation strategies, challenging question response frameworks with model answers for “only 12 interviews,” “just Bourdieu,” and “seems obvious” questions, mock defense simulation script, and reflection prompts on presentation anxiety and confidence-humility balance. The human will verify that presentation advice aligns with disciplinary norms (which vary—some fields prefer text-heavy slides, others minimal), assess timing realism (20-minute storyboarding may be tight—could extend to 25 minutes), provide actual student GT presentation examples for analysis, and clarify institutional defense formats (some programs do formal committee defenses, others conversational examinations). AI-generated content may underestimate performance anxiety (especially for students with presentation phobia or language barriers) and cultural variation in communication styles (Western academic assertiveness not universal)—instructors should provide multiple presentation models and normalize diverse communication approaches. Reproducibility: created November 15, 2025; Claude Sonnet 4.5; follows writing_routine_1_3 pipeline. All presentation examples are pedagogical constructions.

Summary & Outlook

Lesson 10 transformed your written GT analysis into oral performance. You’ve learned to structure presentations that convey inductive logic through visual journey representations, create slides that balance clarity with complexity, develop response strategies for challenging methodological and theoretical questions, and present with appropriate confidence grounded in methodological rigor. The shift from “I wrote a good thesis” to “I can defend it persuasively” demonstrates scholarly maturity and communication competence.

Your storyboarded slides, practiced responses, and defense simulation prepare you for Lesson 11: GT in Applied Contexts—Beyond Academia. While this curriculum emphasizes scholarly GT, the methodology also serves applied purposes: organizational research, program evaluation, community-based participatory research, and action research. How do you adapt GT when stakeholders want solutions not just understanding? How do you balance academic rigor with practitioner accessibility? How do you conduct GT ethically when findings might affect people’s livelihoods or community resources? You’ll learn applied GT variations, including rapid GT for time-constrained contexts, participatory GT that centers affected communities, and translational strategies for making findings actionable.

Presentation skills aren’t just for defense—they’re professional competencies. GT researchers present at conferences, consult with organizations, testify in policy contexts, and communicate with media. Your ability to translate complex analysis into comprehensible narratives makes sociology public.

Next Session Preview: Bring questions about “what comes after the thesis?” We’ll explore how GT serves non-academic purposes, discuss ethical considerations when research affects real-world decisions, and examine case studies of applied GT in organizational settings, health interventions, and community organizing. You’ll learn to adapt your systematic methodology for contexts demanding actionable insights alongside theoretical understanding.

We’ve completed 10 of 12 lessons! Ready for Lesson 11: Applied GT—Beyond Academia?

Literature

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/constructing-grounded-theory/book235960

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/basics-of-qualitative-research/book235578

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206

Tufte, E. R. (2006). Beautiful Evidence. Graphics Press. https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/books_be

Duarte, N. (2008). slide:ology: The Art and Science of Creating Great Presentations. O’Reilly Media. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/slideology/9780596522346/

Reynolds, G. (2011). Presentation Zen: Simple Ideas on Presentation Design and Delivery (2nd ed.). New Riders. https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/presentation-zen-simple-ideas-on-presentation-design-and-delivery/P200000003256

Sword, H. (2012). Stylish Academic Writing. Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674064720

Check Log

Status: on_track

Checks Fulfilled:

  • methods_window_present: true
  • ai_disclosure_present: true (119 words)
  • literature_apa_ok: true (7 sources, APA 7, publisher/DOI links)
  • header_image_present: false (to be added—4:3, blue-dominant, abstract visualization of presentation/communication)
  • alt_text_present: false (pending image)
  • brain_teasers_count: 8 (exceeds minimum 5)
  • hypotheses_marked: true (2 hypotheses with operationalization)
  • summary_outlook_present: true
  • internal_links: 0 (maintainer will add 3-5 to Lessons 1-9, presentation guides)

Next Steps:

  • Maintainer generates header image (suggestion: abstract visualization of presentation concept—perhaps figure/silhouette presenting to audience, or speech/thought bubbles emerging from central form—blue color scheme)
  • Add alt text for accessibility (e.g., “Abstract visualization showing central presenting figure with radiating communication lines or speech elements toward audience, representing oral presentation and knowledge communication”)
  • Integrate internal links to Lessons 1-9, and to any existing posts on academic presentation, visual communication, or thesis defense
  • Pilot test: Monitor whether 20-minute storyboarding is realistic—creating even rough slides may need 25 minutes; prepare to reduce trio presentations to 12 minutes (3 min each + 1 min feedback) if needed
  • Prepare Lesson 11 materials: case studies of applied GT projects, rapid GT protocols, participatory research ethics frameworks, translational writing examples

Date: 2025-11-15

Assessment Target: BA Sociology (7th semester) — Goal grade: 1.3 (Sehr gut).

Publishable Prompt

Natural Language Version: Create Lesson 10 of GT-through-football curriculum on presenting grounded theory orally. 90-minute format: 20-min input (GT presentation architecture with 6-part structure—puzzle/approach/journey/discovery/contribution/implications, detailed slide-by-slide strategy covering 18-21 slides with specific examples including visual representations of coding process, integration diagrams, evidence slides with quotes, theoretical contribution positioning, visual design principles emphasizing minimal text and diagrams over tables), 50-min hands-on (20-min individual storyboarding of 5 critical slides—puzzle/journey/core category/evidence/contribution, 15-min trio micro-presentations with 4 min per person plus 1 min feedback on clarity and suggestions, 10-min Q&A strategy workshop with three challenging questions—small sample size, “just Bourdieu,” obvious findings—with model response frameworks, 5-min plenary on confidence-humility balance), 20-min defense simulation (12-min mock thesis defense with volunteers and role-played committee asking pointed questions, class observing strategies, 8-min final reflection on presentation anxiety and preparation needs). Methods Window explains GT presentation differs from hypothesis-testing by showing process not just conclusions. 8 Brain Teasers on performance vs. authenticity, simplified vs. messy reality, power dynamics in defense, cultural communication styles, Glaser parsimony critique, condescending pedagogy, quote selection bias, defense paradox. 2 hypotheses on visual process representations vs. comprehension and rehearsal vs. Q&A quality. Blog: sociology-of-soccer.com (EN). Target: BA 7th semester, grade 1.3. APA 7 lit: Glaser/Strauss, Charmaz, Corbin/Strauss, Tufte, Duarte, Reynolds, Sword.

JSON Version:

{
  "model": "Claude Sonnet 4.5",
  "date": "2025-11-15",
  "objective": "Create Lesson 10—Presenting GT: Text to Talk",
  "blog_profile": "sociology_of_soccer",
  "language": "en-US",
  "format": "90-minute teaching session",
  "structure": {
    "input_minutes": 20,
    "exercise_minutes": 50,
    "reflection_minutes": 20
  },
  "key_concepts": [
    "GT presentation architecture (6-part structure)",
    "visual representation of analytic journey",
    "showing emergence through slides",
    "Q&A defensive strategies",
    "confidence-humility balance",
    "methodological credibility + substantive insight + theoretical contribution"
  ],
  "pedagogical_tools": {
    "slide_by_slide_guide": "detailed 18-21 slide framework with examples",
    "storyboarding_exercise": "5 critical slides to draft quickly",
    "Q&A_response_frameworks": "structured answers to 3 common challenges",
    "mock_defense_simulation": "role-played committee questions with model responses",
    "visual_design_principles": "6 rules for effective GT slides"
  },
  "fictional_examples": {
    "puzzle_slide": "tifo image with 'This is our club' question",
    "coding_visualization": "field notes with margin codes demonstrated",
    "integration_diagram": "core category with radiating related categories",
    "evidence_slide": "Max quote on embodied presence with bullet analysis",
    "contribution_slide": "extends Bourdieu/challenges Goffman/synthesizes Durkheim+Weber"
  },
  "constraints": [
    "APA 7 (Glaser/Strauss, Charmaz, Corbin/Strauss, Tufte, Duarte, Reynolds, Sword)",
    "GT oral presentation conventions",
    "Header image 4:3 (blue-dominant, presentation/communication visualization)",
    "AI Disclosure 90-120 words",
    "8 Brain Teasers (performance, power, culture, ethics mix)",
    "2 hypotheses (visual process vs. comprehension, rehearsal vs. Q&A)",
    "Check log with didaktik metrics"
  ],
  "pedagogy": {
    "performance_practice": "micro-presentations build confidence through repetition",
    "defensive_strategies": "prepared responses reduce anxiety",
    "peer_feedback": "normalizes critique as improvement tool",
    "anxiety_normalization": "explicit acknowledgment of presentation fears"
  },
  "assessment_target": "BA Sociology (7th semester) — Goal grade: 1.3 (Sehr gut)",
  "quality_gates": ["methods", "quality", "ethics"],
  "workflow": "writing_routine_1_3"
}