I think the autoethnography is safe from Quantitative. Numbers express abstractions recognizable by people highly literate in thinking in math. It isn’t that we aren’t smart in math but that the job of mapping the unfamiliar (which I think we have in the CAE) is being flogged to death by every pseudo numbers genius on the planet and we need a model that is readable and authentic to a general audience without the need of a secondary explanation on what we are on about. I read recently that commercial airliners are now so complex that a medical doctor is needed to understand and diagnose their faults. Maybe even a psychiatrist or a high-level physicist / complexity researcher 🙂

I see patterns of thinking that apply to humans at the level of encountering the unfamiliar like a traveler in a new culture. This often expresses itself an uneasy feeling of things not running fast enough to keep up which I think all of us are drawn to, not scared away by. Maybe Laura could model this in mathematical terms in another paper on the diversity of understanding? There are likely hundreds of ways to decode what we want to find in the CAE and we can do Qualitative.