Embedded, Participatory Research: Creating a Grounded Theory with Teenagers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – This project, based on a study of the impact of art programs in public libraries on the teenaged participants, sought to show how library practitioners can perform embedded, participatory research by adding participants to their research team. Embedded participatory techniques, when paired with grounded theory methods, build testable theories from the ground up, based on the real experiences of those involved, including the librarian. This method offers practical solutions for other librarians while furthering a theoretical research agenda.
 
 Methods – This example of embedded, participatory techniques used grounded theory methods based on the experiences of teens who participated in art programs at a public library. Fourteen teens participated in interviews, and six of them assisted in coding, analyzing, and abstracting the data, and validating the resulting theory.
 
 Results – Employing the teenagers within the research team resulted in a teen-validated theory. The embedded techniques of the practitioner-researcher resulted in a theory that can be applied to practice.
 
 Conclusions – This research framework develops the body of literature based on real-world contexts and supports hands-on practitioners. It also provides evidence-based theory for funding agencies and assessment. In addition, practitioner-based research that incorporates teens as research partners activates teens’ voices. It gives them a venue to speak for themselves with support from an interested and often advocacy-minded adult.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.215 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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