Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Lone HerstedIn times of crisis at many levels and increasing uncertainty and unpredictability in theworld, action researchersp ersistently continue to work in projectsf or societal transformation, democracy, human rights, social justice, education and development in communitiesa nd organizations.The movemento fa ction research is continuing despiteo fp olitical,s ocietal, structural and financial constraints.In this volume of IJAR we present five very different articles on action research from differentp arts of the world: The United States, Argentina, Spain, Canada and Denmark and, as well, areview of anew exciting book, which we consider highly relevantfor people working with action research and related inquiries.The first article in this issueisatheoretical contribution to thefieldofaction researchand is written by Kenneth J. Gergen from the US.In hisa rticle,w hich has thet itle, "Action Research as Process-BasedKnowing", Gergen argues for arelational process paradigm as a foundation for action research and related approaches to research.Heargues that in our times of crisis, in as ocial world characterized by rapid change and continuous and unpredictable disruption, there is ap articular need for action research and related collaborativer esearch inquiries based on ar elational process-oriented way of thinking.Instead of describing the here-and-now, by trying to mirror the world or predict the future, ar elational process orientation focuses on being in the process of becoming within theongoing flow of unpredictable change.Gergen argues for action research as futureforming,asprocess-based knowing aimed at transformation, whichm eans ak ind of research which can actively bring about desired futures and maybe even inspire for transformation at policyl evel.H ep ointso ut that we're embedded in afluidworld of rapid and chaotic change, and he argues that research shouldbea matter of participatory realization of transformation, rather than attemptstodescribe or predict aworld of fixed entities.Gergen understands patterns of behaviour, traditions, and institutions as co-created human constructions, which are not fixed, but open to change through collaborativeparticipation -for instance through action research.In hisarticle, Gergen argues that action research represents arelational ethicinpractice, whereas it cares for thequality of the relationships in the process, and the co-creation of social change fort he common good.He also points out that, the outcomes of action research will always be in process and should never be considered as finalized.Gergen explains in hisa rticle that, ar elational process paradigm of knowledgem ust "remain open to continuous unfolding as relations among participants and the temporal context continue to change".His analysis in this article is based on four overall assumptions concerning pragmatic potential, ontology,e pistemology,a nd ethics.The seconda rticle is carrying the title "Systematisationo fe xperiences and its contribution to Action Research: Transformative knowledge in aprocess of territorial develop-mentinLatin America" and is written by Erica Porras and Mariana Chrestia from Argentina.
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 | 0,047 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 ».