The Interviewee and the Research Interview: Analysing a Neglected Dimension in Research*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'entrevue de recherche est généralement examinée du point de vue du chercheur. Contrairement à la recherche activiste, qui accorde beaucoup d'carimportance à l'opinion du participant, les constructivistes ont ajouté une nouvelle perspective en démontrant comment l'entrevue de recherche est à la fois collaborative et génératrice de significations. Notre étude livre une analyse plus explicite de l'entrevue du point de vue de l'interviewé. Selon une étude portant sur les Canadiens qui migrent à l'intérieur du pays, la signification pour l'interviewé de l'entrevue qualitative est expliquée plus en détail. Nous discutons la motivation qui pousse à la participation en nous fondant sur les concepts de validation d'carexpériences et sur un processus appelé progression réflexive, qui met en lumière le déroulement d'carune entrevue selon la perspective de l'interviewé. The research interview is usually discussed from the vantage point of the researcher. While activist research has drawn attention to the voice of the participant, constructivists have added a new perspective by showing how the research interview is both collaborative and meaning‐making. Our study provides a more explicit analysis of the interview from the perspective of the interviewee. Based on a study of internal migrants in Canada, the meaning of the qualitative interview for the interviewee is more carefully explicated. We discuss motivation for participation using the concepts of event validation and a process called reflexive progression to illuminate what happens in the interview from the interviewee's perspective.
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 | 0.152 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".