Symbolic interactionism as a theoretical perspective for multiple method research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Qualitative and quantitative research rely on different epistemological assumptions about the nature of knowledge. However, the majority of nurse researchers who use multiple method designs do not address the problem of differing theoretical perspectives. Traditionally, symbolic interactionism has been viewed as one perspective underpinning qualitative research, but it is also the basis for quantitative studies. Rooted in social psychology, symbolic interactionism has a rich intellectual heritage that spans more than a century. Underlying symbolic interactionism is the major assumption that individuals act on the basis of the meaning that things have for them. AIM: The purpose of this paper is to present symbolic interactionism as a theoretical perspective for multiple method designs with the aim of expanding the dialogue about new methodologies. CONCLUSION: Symbolic interactionism can serve as a theoretical perspective for conceptually clear and soundly implemented multiple method research that will expand the understanding of human health behaviour.
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 | 0.242 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| 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".