Dialogical Principles for Qualitative Inquiry: A Nonfoundational Path
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leaving the thesis proposal defense room, the PhD business student had an important assignment to accomplish before being authorized to set a date for defending her thesis: to better justify the validity of her qualitative inquiry framed by a critical interpretive standpoint. Knowing that the generation, analysis, and interpretation of empirical materials are processes always conducted within some understanding of what constitutes legitimate inquiry and valid knowledge, she drew inspiration from ethnographical, confessional, critical, and post-modern work to propose a set of dialogical principles for conducting and evaluating a nonfoundational type of research inquiry. This manuscript revisits this venture a number of years later, reflecting on what has changed and what is still missing. We argue that there is a space and an occasion in the research methods literature for proposing dialogical principles for nonfoundational research, principles that are particularly relevant for qualitative researchers struggling in business schools worldwide.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.499 | 0.388 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.215 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.045 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".