The tail of this section has a clear seam: D2HJZP gives a polished paragraph about the interview guide, then #8CUGQ2, #4V3P2S, #CXJKMP read like leftover bullet points from an earlier outline of that same guide, and then MB4SXE returns to housekeeping (language, transcription, translation). So the “end” is doing two jobs at once and stumbling between them.

A few concrete options:

Option 1 — absorb the fragments into D2HJZP and end on MB4SXE. The three fragments are really just sub-themes of the guide that D2HJZP already names (“how they choose what to bring, what routes objects take through their households…”). You could either delete them or fold one or two specifics in:

• divestment routes and why Brīvbode was chosen over alternatives (#8CUGQ2)

• domestic collecting infrastructures and timing before a visit (#4V3P2S)

• friction around ownership/value in unregulated non-monetary exchange (#CXJKMP)

That last one is actually substantive and worth saving — it previews a real analytic theme. The first two are already implied.

Option 2 — keep the fragments but reframe them as a short list. Add a lead-in like “More specifically, the guide probed:” and turn #8CUGQ2/#4V3P2S/#CXJKMP into a clean bulleted list. Cheaper to write, but a list inside a methods chapter often reads as unfinished.

Option 3 — end the section with a forward-looking sentence after MB4SXE. Right now the section just stops on a translation note. One sentence linking the interview material to how it will be used analytically (alongside fieldnotes, in the chapters on acquisition/divestment) would give the section a proper close.

My suggestion: do Option 1 + Option 3. Fold the friction/value point from #CXJKMP into D2HJZP (it’s the only fragment with content not already covered), drop #8CUGQ2 and #4V3P2S, and add one closing sentence after MB4SXE that hands off to the analysis chapters.

Want me to tag those three fragments so they’re easier to find later?

Here’s a plan and a draft you could paste in. Goal: get the section shippable in maybe 30–45 minutes of editing, not rewrite it from scratch.

The structural problem

Right now the section moves: definition → sample → gender caveat → settings → guide → loose bullets → language note. The definition is redundant, the gender caveat interrupts the flow, the bullets duplicate the guide paragraph, and the section ends on housekeeping with no handoff. Two fragments (#RBWPQ8, #8CUGQ2/#4V3P2S/#CXJKMP) read as outline residue.

Proposed order

1. Sample and recruitment — merge #MMZ9WT into AMAN67 (one sentence is enough to license the method)

2. Settings of the interviews — keep NA4Y5J and PVGJ2B

3. Interview guide — keep D2HJZP, fold the one substantive fragment (#CXJKMP on friction in unregulated exchange) into it, drop #8CUGQ2 and #4V3P2S

4. Gender as a limitation — consolidate T6CT7G + #X3TLEX + a cleaned-up #RBWPQ8 into one paragraph at the end (limitations belong near the close, not interrupting the description)

5. Language, transcription, and handoff — extend MB4SXE with one forward-looking sentence

Draft text

Replacing #MMZ9WT + AMAN67 (merged):

During fieldwork I conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with Brīvbode visitors and volunteers, combining a pre-established topic guide with open-ended, follow-up questioning to maintain thematic consistency while following participants’ own accounts (Rubin and Rubin 2012). Ten were longer conversations of 60–90 minutes; five were shorter exchanges of 20–45 minutes, some conducted on-site without prior arrangement. My first interview was with Rasa, the founder of Brīvbode and a key figure in the field with a real talent for connecting with visitors. Familiar with many regulars’ stories, she introduced me to several of them; others I approached during my volunteering hours. Participants included long-term visitors who could reflect on changes in the venue and in their own practice over the years, alongside novices who offered fresh impressions of being introduced to it.

Keep NA4Y5J and PVGJ2B as-is — they’re in good shape.

Replacing D2HJZP + #CXJKMP (fold in the friction theme):

The interview guide was organized around participants’ practices of acquisition and divestment, their relationships to the objects they brought and took, and the social and material dimensions of their participation in Brīvbode. While the guide included some questions on attitudes and motivations, most were designed to elicit accounts of what people actually do — how they choose what to bring, what routes objects take through their households, who does the work of sorting and transporting, and what letting go feels like. Following practice-theoretical methods, the questions sought to access the practical, embodied, and often taken-for-granted dimensions of household goods circulation: the routines, competencies, and emotional labour involved in managing the flow of things. Particular attention was paid to moments of friction and hesitation around the unregulated, non-monetary character of the exchange — whether participants felt there was a right or wrong way to do it, and how notions of ownership and value shifted in the process. Where questions touched on values and motivations, these were treated not as explanations for behaviour but as part of the meanings participants attach to their practices — one element, among materials, competencies, and social arrangements, in how circulation is organised and reproduced.

Replacing T6CT7G + #X3TLEX + #RBWPQ8 (one limitations paragraph):

Most research participants, and the majority of practitioners in Brīvbode, are women — partly reflecting the gendered character of the practice and the division of consumption work it entails. Men do visit, and there are known male regulars, but my attempts to recruit them for interviews were not consistently successful: one interview was unusable, and another initially recruited participant withdrew. Two of the final interviewees are men: one a volunteer, the other the partner of a regular visitor, included to draw out the theme of domestic consumption work and its division within households. From observation, men and women often follow different practice careers in Brīvbode, with men appearing more frequently as sellers of used books and electronics or as collectors of CDs, DVDs and vinyl. This gendered skew should be acknowledged as a limitation of the interview corpus.

Extending MB4SXE (add a closing sentence):

Most interviews were conducted in Latvian, with one partly in Russian; all were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and quotes have been lightly edited for readability where needed. Quotes used in the thesis have been translated into English by me. Together with fieldnotes, these interviews form the empirical basis for the analysis of acquisition, divestment, and circulation developed in the chapters that follow.

What this gets you

Five paragraphs instead of twelve, no fragments, limitations and language sitting where readers expect them, and a one-sentence bridge into the analysis chapters. Shippable.