Also against methodolatry: A reply to Reicher
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development and publication of proposed guidelines for qualitative research (Elliott, Fischer, & Rennie, 1999) is a politically fraught process. We support Reicher's (2000) basic position, that postmodernist critical discourse analysis a la Potter and Wetherell (1987) should develop its own standards of good practice. However, we take exception to Reicher's caricature of phenomenological‐hermeneutic research approaches as philosophically naive, and with his grouping of them with positivist quantitative/experimental methods. We contend that he based his response on prior assumptions which in fact do not pertain to our article or our own work as qualitative researchers. In our response, we correct the mischaracterization and aim to encourage all involved to keep communication channels open.
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 | 0.120 | 0.297 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.059 | 0.126 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".