La recherche qualitative critique : la synergie des approches inductives et des approches critiques en recherche sociale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les approches inductives et les approches critiques sont des termes génériques commodes qui n’ont cependant pas de signification univoque en sciences sociales. Les rapprocher présente donc un risque de confusion. Cet article théorique a pour but de problématiser leurs rapports en apportant une clarification terminologique et une remise en cause de leur prétendue opposition. La thèse défendue soutient qu’aucune antinomie constitutive ne prévient un rapprochement entre les approches inductives et critiques, mais que cette compatibilité ne va pas de soi pour autant. Les deux approches n’interviennent pas sur les mêmes éléments du processus de recherche et la posture épistémologique retenue leur confère également des inclinaisons variables. Dans cet article, le courant critique de la recherche qualitative est désigné comme un territoire propice à la synergie des approches inductives et critiques, car il permet notamment d’élargir le cadre courant des discussions méthodologiques en sciences sociales.
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 | 0.179 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.086 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".