Bringing People Back to the Future: The Role of Hermeneutic Temporality in Participatory Research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within interpretive qualitative research such as hermeneutics, there is a strong connection between past, present, and future in forging understandings of experience. We argue that foundational concepts related to temporality in hermeneutic philosophy can play a key role in participatory research approaches. Participatory research involves working with stakeholders over time, getting to know what is important to them, and attempting to understand how research objectives align with people’s past histories and hopes for the future. We developed a model to exemplify the role of hermeneutics in participatory research, with a particular emphasis on hermeneutic temporality. This model follows the image of a ship that follows three phases: onset, sailing, and ripple effect. As illustrated with a research example in child mental health, we consider that following this model can promote the engagement process with stakeholders, emphasize the importance of people’s situated experiences in shaping a specific research study, and facilitate addressing ethical challenges that may arise.
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.
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 | 0.120 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it