Making a clearing: Qualitative research in anglophone Canadian psychology.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Special Issue Canadian pioneers rid their homestead lands of bush and rock, creating clearings fit for farming. Similarly, a clearing is being established in Canadian psychology. The term refers to a wide variety of methods other than the positivistic ones favoured in most psychological enquiry. These methods include empirical phenomenology (Giorgi, 1970), grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967), discourse analysis (e.g., Potter & Wetherell, 1987), conversation analysis (Labov & Fanshell, 1977), narrative analysis (e.g., Polkinghorne, 1995), and action research (e.g., Reason & Bradbury, 2001), among others. These methods challenge the objectivism prized in conventional enquiry. Most researchers attempt to control for the subjectivity of self and other through procedures such as random sampling, the control-group experiment and the use of objective questionnaires, with all procedures eventuating in quantified results that are analyzed statistically. Qualitative researchers are sceptical of this objectivism. We maintain that it keeps distant the complexities and nuances of what it means to be human, both in terms of those being researched and those doing the research. Thus, given that people use language more than any other form of symbolization to understand themselves and others, we prefer to stay within that mode in our enquiries and analyses. Moreover, we try to take into account our own subjectivity as researchers and positively value making it, as we understand it, available to our readers. Also, we study people and our products intensively more than extensively, which limits the number of people we can study, in turn limiting the generalizations that can be made of our understandings. More fundamentally, although some of us subscribe to a realist epistemology as a way of maintaining links with convention, most of us identify either totally or in part with relativist epistemology and accept the uncertainty that goes with it. The upshot is that qualitative research occupies a middle ground between the sciences and the humanities, which goes against established research practice in psychology and most related social and health science disciplines. At present, qualitative research in Canadian psychology is beginning to take root in some universities and research organizations. Most of the contributions to this Special Issue reflect this development in Anglophone Canadian psychology, while one of them looks at the rise in English-language publications of qualitative research worldwide. There are six articles in all. Leading off is Janet Stoppard who narrates her turn to qualitative research, which led to the development of a course in it that has been adopted by her university's graduate program in psychology. Along the way she addresses the epistemological and methodological principles involved in qualitative research from a discourse analytic standpoint, which helps to frame the ensuing contributions. The next article by Michael Kral, Kate Burkhardt, and Sean Kidd provides examples of the conduct of qualitative research, mainly of an action research kind. They give interesting accounts of work with street youth in Toronto and Vancouver, Inuit prison inmates, and Inuit people concerned about the epidemic of suicides in the Nunavut territory of Canada. The three case studies compellingly demonstrate how such participatory action research is made integral to the lives of those to whom it is addressed. The third article by Kimberly Watson, Althea Monteiro, and myself gives the returns from a study of the rise of qualitative research in psychology and related disciplines in the English-speaking world during the 20th century. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».