A novice reflects on The Research Interview: Reflective Practice and Reflexivity in Research Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Steve Mann intended this book for the novice and experienced qualitative researcher, with the aim "to raise awareness and sensitivity to the range of issues in inherent in the use of qualitative interviews" (p.28), particularly since Mann believes that "studies require a more reflexive treatment of the language of the interview" (p.271).In this book, the experienced qualitative researcher gains a teaching aid for reflective practice (explicitly the vignettes throughout the book as well as Chapter 10), and the novice gains an introduction to reflexive practice, as well as the logistics of interviewing.At a minimum, the first chapter would be appropriate "required reading" for an introductory qualitative research course insofar as it will indicate whether there is a good fit between the student researcher and the methodology she intends to research her topic.If the thoughts and ideas presented seem foreign, unfamiliar, or unappetizing, then qualitative research may not be the best choice at this point.For example, Mann presents interviews as co-creations influenced by the researcher's personal history and personal knowledge of the research topic, which, along with her own physicality and position in society, may influence the creation of knowledge in the research process.In this chapter, Mann also takes the opportunity to deal with potential positive angst regarding the validity of the qualitative research findings by discussing processes to increase the rigor, transparency, credibility, and overall quality of the research.For example, Mann stresses the importance of keeping a diary to "make explicit your assumptions and evaluate how these shape the interview, record dilemmas, concerns and troubling ethical questions, as well as breakthroughs and realizations" (p.19) and practicing reflective bracketing, whereby "the researcher maintain [s] […] some distance between the researcher and the research project" (p.21).Mann introduces his main theme of the reflexive treatment of language in interaction, by distinguishing between reflection, reflective practices, and reflexivity.Reflection involves learning from experience, by thinking over the experience and evaluating it.Reflective practice is the process of learning from experience through some form of reflection.Reflective practice can only be built through experience.Reflexivity involves being self-aware, "examining your assumptions, beliefs, 'conceptual baggage' and preconceptions and how these affect the interaction and dynamics in the interview" (p.27).As well, reflexivity recognizes importance of context and the co-construction of knowledge in interviews.For the novice, Mann provides good advice on the logistics of interviewing (ensuring you have access to the building/office, how to transition from the opening activities of obtaining consent, breaking the ice and setting the stage, to the main activity of asking questions, to recapping and wrapping up the interview), transcription (do it yourself for "thinking" and "noticing" benefits, what level of detail is required), as well as insights into increasing the rigor of qualitative research through reflective practice and reflexivity.Mann provided
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 | 0.048 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".