Moving Toward Third-Space: Reflections on the Tensions with/in Qualitative Research / Vers le troisième espace : réflexions sur les tensions en recherche qualitative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This reflective essay examines some of the dialectical tensions that can emerge within qualitative research and that can result in internal and external conflicts and a wide range of emotions and feelings for researchers. It is important to notice and examine these tensions as many art educators use qualitative research methods. Subsequently, more attention is needed to recognizing research as an emotional, and conflicted journey. The Japanese aesthetic of wabi-sabi and paradox theory offers applicable insights into the qualitative research process. Approaches to ‘qualitative thinking’ and artistic and contemplative methods are explored with the aim of reflexivity and disrupting dialectical thinking in qualitative research.Keywords: Qualitative research; Dialectical tensions; Third Space; Rhizomatic thinking. Résumé : Ce compte rendu réflexif se penche sur certaines des tensions dialectiques susceptibles d’apparaître en recherche qualitative, de mener à des conflits internes et externes et de susciter chez le chercheur une vaste gamme d’émotions et de sentiments. Il importe de prendre note de ces tensions et de s’y attarder car de nombreux éducateurs emploient concepts et méthodes de recherche qualitative. Il faut par conséquent se préoccuper davantage de la recherche qualitative en tant que processus émotionnel et souvent conflictuel. Cette enquête se base sur les travaux de chercheurs multidisciplinaires selon lesquels le concept « d’entre-deux » et de « troisième espace » perturbe fondamentalement la pensée binaire. D’autres stratégies sont par ailleurs introduites pour appuyer la pensée rationnelle dans le domaine de la recherche qualitative et la création de cultures de recherche rhizomatiques.Mots-clés : recherche qualitative, tensions dialectiques, troisième espace, pensée rhizomatique.
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 | 0.316 | 0.247 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.125 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".