Once upon a time: Storytelling as a knowledge translation strategy for qualitative researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative research should strive for knowledge translation toward the goal of closing the gap between knowledge and practice. However, it is often a challenge in nursing to identify knowledge translation strategies able to illustrate the usefulness of qualitative results in any given context. This article defines storytelling and uses pragmatism to examine storytelling as a strategy to promote the knowledge translation of qualitative results. Pragmatism posits that usefulness is defined by the people affected by the problem and that usefulness is promoted by modalities, like storytelling, that increase sensitivity to an experience. Indeed, stories have the power to give meaning to human behaviors and to trigger emotions, and in doing so bring many advantages. For example, by contextualizing research results and appealing to both the reason and the emotions of audiences, storytelling can help us grasp the usefulness of these research results. Various strategies exist to create stories that will produce an emotional experience capable of influencing readers' or listeners' actions. To illustrate the potential of storytelling as a knowledge translation strategy in health care, we will use our story of discovering this strategy during a qualitative study in a nursing home as an example.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
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 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".