Mixed metaphors for reading and writing the qualitative thesis in adult education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper applies narrative inquiry to the organising metaphors for reading and writing a qualitative thesis in adult education. Three perspectives are featured: methodologists and theorists; graduate students writing adult education theses; and faculty advisors who read and respond to graduate students' theses. My autobiographical account of writing two adult education theses and reading many graduate students' theses shapes my narrative inquiry into the interplay of metaphors between reader and writer. Practice-based exemplars explicate the dominant narrative genre and journey metaphors for organising theses. The inquiry traces readers and writers in a responsive, dialogical relationship characterised by restorying each other's metaphors using in-kind and different metaphors. I propose different organising metaphors for reading and writing qualitative research in the postmodern era. I re-place the journey-narrative genre of ‘beginning to ending’ with cartographies and storying/re-storying ‘in the middle’. Cartographies re-metaphorise the writing and reading of adult education theses and in the process adult educator authors are re-metaphorised as situated, bodily works-in-process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".