“I Look at You and See You Looking at Me”: Role Boundaries in a Dynamic Research Relationship in Qualitative Health Research With Refugees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In institutional ethical and deontological guidelines, there is a prevailing, static understanding of the research partnership, with a clear boundary between researcher and participant. In this article, we argue that such a static understanding may run the risk of impeding the development of an enhanced contextual and dynamic intersubjective understanding of the research partnership and its impact on the growing importance of role boundaries in qualitative research. Drawing from a refugee health study on trauma and forced migration, we explore the different ways in which participants and the researcher engaged with the researcher's multiple positions and role boundaries. In doing so, we aim to contribute to a reflective research practice by providing tools to recognize signs of potential harm and offer potential vehicles of reconstruction and agency within the intersubjective space of a dynamic research relationship, within a continuous, shared renegotiation process of role boundaries.
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 | 0.294 | 0.216 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.136 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".