van den Hoonaard, D. (2012). Qualitative Research in Action: A Canadian Primer. Oxford University Press. ISBN-10: 0199009473
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative Research in Action: A Canadian Primer (van den Hoonaard, 2012) provides a comprehensive introduction to qualitative research from a social constructivist, symbolic interactionism perspective. Van den Hoonaard references her previous writings and research experiences extensively as she provides context and examples for readers to draw upon while they learn new concepts and methodologies. Qualitative Research in Action is divided into ten chapters, and systematically goes through the process of beginning a new research project. She begins the preface of the text by locating her theoretical approach as being rooted in symbolic interactionism (p. x). The text moves into defining the differences between qualitative and quantitative work, as well as addressing the potential benefits of a mixed methods approach. Van den Hoonaard comes from a sociological perspective and presents Robert Prus’s (2005) ‘generic social processes’, which “reflect researchers’ interest in the emergent nature of human life” (p. 27). Moreover, she positions herself and Qualitative Research in Action as providing a uniquely Canadian perspective on qualitative research while citing Canadian qualitative studies.
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 | 0.046 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.009 |
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".