Katherine Bischoping & Amber Gazso, Analyzing Talk in the Social Sciences: Narrative, Conversation & Discourse Strategies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I n organizing an introductory book on qualitative research methodol- ogy, some scholars prefer to survey various philosophic stances that underpin research practice (Paul, 2004), or discuss the implications of a particular philosophic stance for doing research (Bentz & Shapiro, 1998; Carspecken, 1996; Wiley, 2011).Others take more practical approaches to mapping out various research designs (Creswell & Poth, 2014) or research procedures (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey, 2010).To this interdisciplinary and international scholarship, Canadian sociologists Katherine Bischoping and Amber Gazso offer a new perspective in their co-authored book, Analyzing Talk in the Social Sciences: Narrative, Conversation & Discourse Strategies.They suggest attending to the data that a researcher has already collected, and address the question of what a researcher should do after completing her data collection.This practical perspective, starting with the appraisal of the feature of the data, allows Bischoping and Gazso to showcase strategies a qualitative researcher can employ in conducting her analysis.The authors thus carve out an analytic space between epistemological contemplation and procedural, basic coding analysis.Without losing sight of the larger picture of the epistemological underpinnings, their introduction of research methodology gravitates toward hands-on strategies.To be more specific, Analyzing Talk in the Social Sciences focuses exclusively on "talk data," the conversations taking place in naturalistic, institutional and research settings.To legitimize the choice of their focus, they argue that talk data has gained popularity since World War II, along with the wide use of tape recorders and "in response to social, political, and intellectual currents" (3).The book's focus on talk data excludes several other types of data that qualitative researchers also frequently use, such as observation notes, historical archives, and texts on social and popular media.Because the authors stress the spontaneity, ephemerality, and embodiedness of a conversation, some forms of communication that belong to a broader definition of "talk
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".