Charlas y Comidas: Humanising focus groups and interviews
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
Qualitative research has utilised focus groups and interviews to gather information from participants while conducting ethnographic research. This article explores the potential of alternative forms of collecting data that are more in line with the participants’ feelings, emotions and expectations. Charlas (chats) and Comidas (meals) were utilised in an ethnographic study with English teachers and their students in marginalised high schools in Bogotá, Colombia. I found that opening a safe space for participants to share their ideas, suggestions and comments while chatting informally or having a meal encourages leadership of the research process. This generated a sentiment of trust and bond which strengthen their sense of belonging to their academic community. This article contributes to the literature on alternative, critical and decolonial forms of doing research by considering ways to implement methods that acknowledge the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of the participants which strengthen humanising relationships, especially in marginalised contexts.
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 | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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