Oral History in UK Doctoral Research: Extent of Use and Researcher Preparedness for Emotionally Demanding Work
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
Oral history is increasingly used in academic teaching and research across many disciplines and contexts in the UK. However, there is currently no accurate picture of the extent to which oral history is practiced at the doctoral level and the diversity of its disciplinary and institutional contexts. Similarly, there is no clear understanding of how doctoral students are prepared for doing oral history research and what their particular concerns might be. This article presents the findings from a recent mixed-method pilot study which explored (1) the extent of use of oral history in doctoral research both as a main methodology and a supplementary method of data collection, and (2) the conceptual, ethical, and practical needs of doctoral students engaging with oral history. Focus group interviews generated detailed discussion of the often-unrecognized emotional labor involved in oral history research, the lack of preparedness in dealing with it, its potential impact on the researcher, and ways of mitigating this. This article examines the underinvestigated element of emotional labor in conducting oral history research, entanglements of responses and responsibilities, and ways of practicing an ethics of care in the current higher education context.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it