Narrative, Knowing, and Emerging Methodologies in Environmental Education Research: Issues of Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the context of an educational research community that now seems prepared to take narrative forms of representing human experience serious-ly, this paper addresses issues of quality within such inquiries, as applied to research in environmental education. At issue here is not whether we shall have criteria but what might be the basis for criteria within a transformed social inquiry. Grounded in studies of teacher thinking and practice in Canadian elementary schools, the paper traces the debates about issues of quality in qualitative inquiry through the language of positivist, interpre-tivist, criticalist and postmodernist notions of representation and legitima-tion. Ultimately, narrative methodologies pull us away from foundational criteria toward more situated local community perspectives; conversations about moral, ethical, and critical consciousness and social critique that con-nect personal to social to environmental dimensions of discourse practices. Résumé Dans le contexte d’une communauté de recherche pédagogique qui semble maintenant prête à adopter des formes narratives pour représenter sérieusement l’expérience humaine, ce document aborde les enjeux de la qualité de semblables enquêtes applicables à la recherche en éducation envi-ronnementale. Il ne s’agit pas de savoir si nous aurons ou non des critères, mais plutôt de déterminer ce qui peut constituer le fondement des critères d’une enquête sociale transformée. Appuyé sur des études au sujet du raisonnement et de la pratique des enseignants dans les écoles élémentaires canadiennes, ce document retrace les débats sur les enjeux de la qualité des enquêtes qualitatives au moyen du langage de notions positivistes, interpré-tatives, critiques et postmodernes de la représentation et de la légitimation. En définitive, les méthodologies narratives nous éloignerons des critères généraux pour nous amener à des perspectives communautaires locales davantage situationnelles, ainsi qu’à des conversations sur la conscience morale, éthique et critique et sur la critique sociale qui relient les dimen-sions personnelles, sociales et environnementales des pratiques du discours.
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 | 0.062 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".