A Return to Methodological Commitment: Reflections on Narrative Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 25 years since narrative inquiry emerged as a social science research methodology, it has been rapidly taken up in the social sciences. In what is sometimes called a “narrative revolution,” researchers with diverse understandings have co-opted the concept of narrative inquiry and used narrative inquiry or narrative research to name their methodology. In this paper, we lay out more clearly the ontological and epistemological commitments that underlay the methodological commitments of narrative inquiry. Within narrative inquiry, experience is viewed narratively and necessitates considerations of relational knowing and being, attention to the artistry of and within experience, and sensitivity to the overlapping stories that bring people together in research relationships. Working within the relational three-dimensional narrative inquiry space with dimensions of temporality, sociality, and place, we attend to the living, telling, retelling, and reliving of stories of experience.
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 | 0.366 | 0.413 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.198 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.071 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.047 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; 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".