Bracketing in Qualitative Research
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.105 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Bracketing is a method used in qualitative research to mitigate the potentially deleterious effects of preconceptions that may taint the research process. However, the processes through which bracketing takes place are poorly understood, in part as a result of a shift away from its phenomenological origins. The current article examines the historical and philosophical roots of bracketing, and analyzes the tensions that have arisen since the inception of bracketing in terms of its definition, who brackets, methods of bracketing, and its timing in the research process. We propose a conceptual framework to advance dialogue around bracketing and to enhance its implementation.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Qualitative Social Work
- Topic
- Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Field
- Social Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- University of Toronto
- Funders
- —
- Keywords
- Bracketing (phenomenology)EpistemologyProcess (computing)Qualitative researchSociologyPsychologyComputer scienceSocial sciencePhilosophy
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes