Ubuntu and constructivist grounded theory: an African methodology package
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conducting qualitative research in Southern Africa can present challenges for researchers seeking to explore local perspectives on health phenomena. We must address sensitive issues such as language, translation and cultural differences as well as local history, power and, possibly, colonial legacies. Our purpose in this paper is to explore the use of a Southern African philosophy, Ubuntu, as an appropriate ontology to guide qualitative nursing research, specifically constructivist grounded theory. To do so, we briefly discuss the historical problematic of Western research and its relationship to Africa and Africans. We introduce the principles of Ubuntu and its role in African society and use constructivist grounded theory as an example of a methodology that is congruent with Ubuntu. We highlight the areas of correspondence between them. The values of Ubuntu, of mutuality, interdependence, humility, solidarity and so forth could serve as a way to strengthen any research, by reminding researchers to enter the field with humility, awe and wonder at the complexity of human life.
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 | 0.100 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.005 |
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".