Layered Methodologies: Innovating Multimodal Qualitative Research in Liver Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing interest in qualitative methodologies for understanding complexities in the lived experience of liver transplantation. Frequently, such studies explore quality of life and offer insights for integrating patient-oriented outcomes into conventional research strategies. The scope of qualitative research in liver transplantation tends to be limited, however, with respect to engagement with critical theories, leaving certain aspects of lived experience unexamined. The authors describe the process of layering multiple modes of critical qualitative research in liver transplantation, exploring how experiences in liver transplantation are structured discursively and what aspects of recipients’ stories are not easily spoken or shared. This study pairs a critical discourse analysis of patient manuals from a Canadian liver transplant program with digital storytelling with liver transplant recipients. A homogenous narrative emerges from patient manuals that does not adequately capture the complexity of lived experience of liver transplant survivors. Digital storytelling opens new narrative possibilities by layering sensory aspects of the transplant experience, which are often difficult to articulate through words. This complicates common ideas of survivorship, who is considered a “good” patient, and the cultural scripts that transplant stories frequently engage. Critical qualitative research offers opportunities for understanding structures of power embedded within biomedical transplant narratives. Layering qualitative and arts-based methodologies within a framework of co-creation can shift knowledge/power relations while also intervening through material-discursive practices to offer novel insights and opportunities for critical reflection on transplant experiences for recipients, families, and healthcare providers.
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 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 | 0.016 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".