Mobilizing Dis/Ability Research: A Critical Discussion of Qualitative Go-Along Interviews in Practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I document the challenges of operationalizing critical qualitative mobile research methods, specifically go-along interviews. Mobility-oriented qualitative inquiry is a way to examine disabled and Mad persons’ socio-spatial knowledges and study spatial inequalities impacting these persons. I reflect on my own positionality as an able-bodied researcher, while conducting research with self-identifying Mad and disabled research participants. I further discuss the limitations, enabling factors, constraints, and implications of engaging in go-along interviews. Next, I unpack how and why this method at many times was not desired by my research participants in favor of more traditional interview techniques, such as sit-down face-to-face interviews. There is a need to critically (re)consider space and place in research practices in ways that value the often subjugated voices and socio-spatial knowledge(s) of Mad and disabled persons.
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.
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 | 0.041 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it