Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au cours des dix dernières années, nous avons été témoins de l'im‐portance croissante accordée aux principes d'éthique appliqués à la recherche mais aussi de la popularité et de la pertinence grandis‐santes de la recherche inductive, plus connue sous le nom de recherche et d'analyse qualitatives. Dans cet article, nous étudions le contexte social dans lequel se situe l'examen déontologique des travaux de recherche et son influence sur la recherche qualitative. Plus précisément, nous soutenons que, lorsque cet examen déontologique est fondé sur les principes et l'épistémologie de la recherche déductive, il a tendance à rogner et à entraver le dynamisme et l'ob‐jet de la recherche qualitative. À l'aide de documents, de rapports de recherche formelle et d'après notre expérience personnelle et celle d'autres collègues, nous démontrons l'aspect disproportioné de l'examen déontologique de la recherche, qui semble favoriser la recherche quantitative ‐ c'est‐à‐dire la recherche formelle fondée sur des hypothèses ‐, au détriment de la recherche qualitative. Nos exem‐ples proviennent surtout du Canada, des États‐Unis et d'Angleterre, en anthropologie, éducation, sciences infirmières, psychologie et so‐ciologie. Nous affirmons que les processus sociaux qui sous‐tendent l'analyse déontologique de la recherche s'apparentent à ceux que lon associe à une panique morale. The recent decade saw not only the rise of the importance of formal ethical research guidelines, but also witnessed the growing popularity and relevance of inductive research, better known as qualitative research and analysis. This paper addresses the social context of formal ethical review and its influence on qualitative research. Specifically, it suggests that when ethical review is based on the principles and epistemology of deductive research, it tends to erode or hamper the thrust and purpose of qualitative research. Using documents, formal research accounts, and the experiences of others and myself, the author indicates the lopsided nature of reviewing the ethics of research, which seems to work in favour of quantitative, formal hypotheses‐driven research, to the serious disadvantage of qualitative research. The paper draws most heavily on evidence in Canada, the United States, and England, in the fields of anthropology, education, nursing, psychology, and sociology. The social processes underpinning research‐ethics review, the author avers, are similar to those associated with a moral panic.
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 | 0.454 | 0.572 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".