Exploring the boundary between narrative research and narrative intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Researchers need to be cautious and reflective about the boundaries between narrative research and narrative intervention. Pursuing the ethics of care and the responsive and responsible practice of narrative inquiry obliges qualitative researchers to remain sensitive about the implications of engaging participants in narrative inquiry. This is accentuated with narrative inquiry into the life experiences of marginalised or disempowered populations. This study explored the implications of engaging recently resettled young African participants in narrative inquiry interviews. Thematic analysis uncovered four themes and 11 subthemes from the interviews. The Future Career Autobiography (FCA; Rehfuss, 2009 , 2015 ) was used to understand these participants’ narrative themes and explore the possibility of narrative change as a result of participating in narrative inquiry interviews. The findings illustrate the transformative function of narrative inquiry as uncovered by the FCA, and how narrative inquiry could potentially cross a boundary with narrative interventions such as narrative career counselling.
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 | 0.322 | 0.279 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.096 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".