Bringing People Back to the Future: The Role of Hermeneutic Temporality in Participatory Research
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.
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 | 0.262 | 0.166 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.114 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".