15th Qualitative Methods Conference, 3-5 May 2016, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Qualitative Methods Conference, hosted annually by International Institute for Qualitative Methodology (IIQM), was a 3-day event focusing on qualitative research across disciplines. The theme of conference, Collaboration Considered: Complexities and Possibilities Across Communities and Cultures, invited presentations and discussions around challenges and benefits of conducting research collaborativeiy-as well as providing a platform for new perspectives on research approaches to emerge across disciplinary, geographical, and cultural boundaries. According to Sarah Stahlke, conference chair, conference programme sought to reflect the diversity of approaches being used across disciplines and experiences of a vast array of researchers. The picturesque city of Glasgow, Scotland, flaunted cold but uncharacteristically dry weather providing a perfect venue for a conference that sought to generate dialogue on complexities and possibilities.The opening keynote address by Jean Clandinin, professor and founding director of Centre for Research for Teacher Education and Development at University of Alberta, titled Relational Commitments of Narrative Inquirers stimulated thinking about relational ethics in qualitative research. Her presentation took audience on an autobiographical narrative journey reflecting on her lengthy engagement with a young girl from an impoverished Indigenous community. As her story unfolded, we began to learn about shifting positioning-and repositioning-of researcher and young girl in relation to each other and to their emerging relationship over months and years of engagement. This was a thought-provoking start to conference, reminding delegates that research is a relational process of becoming for both researcher and participant, and encouraging fellow researchers to be mindful of how their engagements can become part of participants' lives.The second keynote address was presented on final day of conference by Penny Tinkler, a senior lecturer in sociology at University of Manchester, who has written extensively on photomethods and visual culture. Her presentation, Building Bridges and Bridging Time: Photo-Elicitation as Collaborative Practice, spoke to issues of both implicit and explicit collaboration, highlighting important difference between participation and collaboration. She further argued that collaborative microprocesses, when designed into research engagement, help build bridges with participants and are key to success of photo-elicitation interviews. What stood out was her discussion that carefully planning and thinking about such microprocesses can contribute towards rigour and quality in visual research.Three micro keynote addresses had been selected from all submitted abstracts for their innovative or intriguing contribution, and were presented in a plenary format. Victoria Palmer, Senior Research Fellow at University of Melbourne, spoke about an interdisciplinary, qualitative approach informed by theories of ethics and narrative examining primary health care, severe mental illness, and recovery. She was followed by Suzanne Goopy, a cultural and visual anthropologist and professor of community health at University of Calgary, speaking about using cultural probes in focus groups to enable empathie, engaging, and emancipatory research. The final speaker, Louela Manankil-Rankin from Nipissing University, rounded up panel by outlining an innovative process of data analysis in narrative inquiry.The conference did not feature set thematic tracks but each day delegates could move between seven concurrent sessions representing a variety of topics. The range of morning and afternoon sessions featured topics such as:* Specialised methodologies (e.g., case studies, action research, longitudinal research, interpretive phenomenology, ethnographic approaches)* Research skills (e. …
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 | 0.047 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.195 | 0.038 |
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".