Whose story is it anyway? Exploring ethical dilemmas in performed research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As researchers in the field of education continue to expand the use of theatre as a device for inquiry-related purposes, increased attention is being paid to important methodological and ethical implications related to performatively representing and disseminating research findings. This article examines some of these issues within the context of a research project that used theatre to fictionalize the inner voices of educators in an attempt to reveal the multiple perspectives and loyalties that significantly characterize interpersonal dynamics within educational settings. The article begins with a scene from an ethnotheatre play that was designed by the researchers to serve as a site of inquiry that would enable researcher-participants, performers and audience members to performatively explore these inner voices. Who these inner voices belong to and the ethical implications involved in fictionalizing them are issues that are explored in some detail by the authors as these attempt to bring greater clarity to the process of theatricalizing and performing 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 | 0.238 | 0.228 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.183 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.045 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".