Autoethnography as a Strategy for Engaging in Reflexivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflexivity is a key feature in qualitative research, essential for ensuring rigor. As a nurse practitioner with decades of experience with individuals who have chronic diseases, now embarking on a PhD, I am confronted with the question "how will my clinical experiences shape my research?" Since there are few guidelines to help researchers engage in reflexivity in a robust way, deeply buried aspects that may affect the research may be overlooked. The purpose of this paper is to consider the affordances of combining autoethnography (AE) with visual methods to facilitate richer reflexivity. Reflexive activities such as free writing of an autobiographical narrative, drawings of clinical vignettes, and interviews conducted by an experienced qualitative researcher were analyzed to probe and make visible perspectives that may impact knowledge production. Two key themes reflecting my values-fostering advocacy and favoring independence and autonomy were uncovered with this strategy.
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 | 0.135 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".