Who are the participants? Rethinking representational practices and writing with heterotopic possibility in qualitative inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper draws on Foucault's notion of heterotopia to ask a series of questions about the important link between the crisis of representation in qualitative research and new theorizations of the ‘subject’ within poststructural feminist research. Reiterating Foucault's question, ‘what is it impossible to think and what kind of impossibility are we faced with here,’ the authors wonder how naming practices that mobilize social categories determine what is visible and thus analyzable to educational researchers. How might research writing understood as a representational practice be made to perform as a heterotopic space: a reflection on writing practices and representation itself? In engaging with these questions, the paper juxtaposes two different research projects in an attempt to set in motion readings that are—for the authors as well as for readers—self and cross‐interrogating. Each project engenders different problematizations of the ways in which identity categories are represented in research.
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 | 0.159 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.101 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".