Stepping off the Road: A Researcher's story of challenging method/changing methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT. This narrative recounts the disruption of my graduate research project by persistent, self-reflexive questioning of the process of doing independent research for the first time, and draws its texts from the resulting master’s thesis. In this story, the ethnographic method I chose initially to study the experience of women returning to school to earn degrees became less methodologically convincing as critical questions about the method emerged through self-reflective writing in my research journal. As I followed the disruptions generated through writing, and attended to the equally compelling disruptions due to disabling chronic illness, these experiences prompted a methodological shift in the research, with unforeseen textual consequences. Slowly, it became apparent to me that research journal writings that reflected my observations and concerns about power, representation and authority in the research I was conducting, and within the academy itself, constituted the ground of a viable narrative inquiry into what I had been experiencing as a beginning researcher. The thesis I had set out to create was definitely not the one I wrote. SORTIR DES SENTIERS BATTUS : L’HISTOIRE D’UNE CHERCHEUSE QUI CONTESTE LES METHODES DEFICIENTES ET CHANGE LA METHODOLOGIE RESUME. Ce recit relate l’interruption de mon projet de recherche d’etudes superieures en raison de la remise en question constante et autoreflexive du processus de recherche independante entreprise pour la premiere fois, et tire ses textes de la these de maitrise qui en a resulte. Dans ce recit, la methode ethnographique choisie au depart pour analyser l’experience des femmes qui retournent aux etudes afin de decrocher un diplome est devenue moins convaincante sur le plan methodologique a mesure que je me posais des questions tres importantes sur la methodologie dans la redaction autoreflexive de mon journal de recherche. Tout en suivant les interruptions generees par la redaction, et en pretant attention aux interruptions tout aussi contraignantes en raison de la maladie chronique invalidante, ces experiences ont mene a un changement de la methodologie de recherche ainsi qu’a des consequences imprevues sur la redaction. Il m’est ainsi lentement apparu que la redaction du journal de recherche qui exprimait mes observations et mes preoccupations concernant le pouvoir, la representation et l’autorite dans le cadre de la recherche que je menais, et au sein de l’academie elle-meme, constituait la matiere pour une recherche narrative viable sur mon experience en tant que chercheur debutant. La these que j’ai ecrite n’a assurement rien a voir avec mon projet de these initial.
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 | 0.095 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.040 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".