Doing Duoethnography: Addressing Essential Methodological Questions
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
Duoethnography is a collaborative research methodology that invites researchers to serve as sites of inquiry. Through juxtaposition, the voices of each researcher are made explicit, working in tandem to untangle and disrupt meanings about a particular social phenomenon. We gravitate to duoethnography for its evocative power and the opportunity this methodology provides to engage in meaningful self-study in the presence of another. Yet, we grapple with methodological issues related to the unseen and unspoken enactments of the methodology. This article makes transparent the process of engaging in duoethnography by modeling its polyvocal dialogic nature while simultaneously addressing five essential questions about this collaborative research methodology. In this article, we retrace our collective journey engaging in duoethnography over the past 10 years, reflecting upon how our understanding and engagement with the methodology has shifted and expanded with each new inquiry. We make visible what is often invisible in the process of doing duoethnography, explicitly discussing our process for beginning and concluding a duoethnography, addressing what constitutes duoethnographic data, and the importance of cultivating a trustworthy and safe dialogical space. This article contributes to the existing methodological literature on duoethnography and further substantiates and generates transparency and teachability of this collaborative research approach.
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 | 0.020 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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