Reclaiming the Potential of Transformative Scholarship to Enable Social Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars within critical qualitative inquiry and health sciences are becoming increasingly interested in transformative scholarship as a means to pursue greater justice in society. However, transformative scholarship has been taken up within frameworks that given a lack of consistent alignment with the critical paradigm seem to fall short in this intention. This article aims to reclaim transformative scholarship as an epistemological and methodological space that transforms and challenges the social order, situating social justice at the forefront of inquiry. The article begins by addressing the call for work toward social justice within critical qualitative inquiry. Subsequently, Creswell and Mertens’ frameworks are analyzed as examples of transformative scholarship that has distanced itself from its critical roots. Based on this analysis, we raise three problematics to illustrate the dangers of this distancing. We conclude by proposing to reframe transformative scholarship within the critical paradigm to (re)connect it to political stances and values.
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 | 0.223 | 0.193 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.168 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".