Theoretical and ethical issues using Heidegger’s hermeneutics in a research project with children living with physical, intellectual or social disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hermeneutic phenomenology can contribute to the understanding of the lived experience of various health phenomenon of nursing. Although hermeneutic phenomenology is gaining importance in nursing research, it remains important to discuss the theoretical and ethical issues that may be encountered when using such methodology with children living with disabilities. A critical discussion on the use of Heidegger’s hermeneutics when studying the lived experience of children living with disabilities, will help us gain insight on the issues that we may come across as researchers. This article begins with an insightful overview of the core concept of Heidegger Hermeneutic Phenomenology (HHP) followed by a discussion on theoretical and ethical issues that may arise when doing research with children living with disabilities – the topic as example. In light of this discussion, we suggest some innovator implications for nursing practices and nursing 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 | 0.165 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.098 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| 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".