MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996582973 · doi:10.1177/1558689809336660

Bourdieu’s Reflexive Sociology as a Theoretical Basis for Mixed Methods Research

2009· article· en· W1996582973 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mixed Methods Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Cultural Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivitySociologyEpistemologyStructure and agencyAgency (philosophy)Social scienceSocial researchObject (grammar)Qualitative researchComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although mixing quantitative and qualitative methods is increasingly popular, there is insufficient theoretical rationale for doing so. Foremost among the legacy left to the social and behavioral sciences by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu stands his emphasis on methodological reflexivity. Reflexive sociology as elaborated by Bourdieu is a self-referential methodology of social research, which turns methods of constructing the research object back on themselves so as to produce more accurate understanding of the social world. Using the sociology of alternative medicine as an illustration, this article casts Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology as a theoretical basis for mixed methods research that can offer insights into the interplay of structure and agency in human behavior.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.162
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1620.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.279
GPT teacher head0.674
Teacher spread0.395 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it