Conducting critical ethnography in long-term residential care: experiences of a novice researcher in the field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: In this paper, I describe my experiences as a novice researcher doing a critical ethnography in long-term residential care. I reflect upon the challenges and lessons learned in navigating trust and power relations in this complex sociopolitical field. BACKGROUND: Critical ethnography is an important method of inquiry that can lead to disruptions in the status quo and empowerment of disenfranchised groups. In nursing scholarship, there is a body of literature about this method of inquiry. This paper further contributes to this scholarship by describing my experiences in the field, with particular attention to the linkages between the study's theoretical perspective, method of inquiry, and criteria for trustworthiness, and how these elements guided my actions in the field. DATA SOURCES: The study that provides the context for this paper was a critical ethnography that examined the organization of long-term residential care in British Columbia, Canada. The method of inquiry was underpinned by a theoretical perspective that wove together a postcolonial feminist approach with Foucauldian epistemology. The study's criteria for trustworthiness were: credibility, reflexivity, reciprocity, voice and praxis. DISCUSSION: Throughout the study, I found myself navigating issues related to building trust in the researcher/participant relationship and navigating power relations. Using examples, I describe how I approached these issues using the criteria for trustworthiness and theoretical perspective as guides. CONCLUSION: Critical ethnography is a method of inquiry that can enrich nursing research and educational scholarship by generating greater understanding about the complex fields in which nurses practise.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".