Researching Understandings of the Child in Intercultural Marriages: Trying Out a Hermeneutic Interview Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In interpretive inquiry, researchers need interviewing approaches that will create possibilities for insight and holistic understanding. A hermeneutic interview protocol was developed and refined over a number of years in the context of an interpretive inquiry course. In this study, one of the authors examines her experience with using this interview framework in a practice inquiry for her research on “understandings of the child” in intercultural marriages. The study identifies the misgivings and doubts she experienced before and during the interview. It also illustrates how the structure of the interview supported the interview participant in reflecting upon and reconstructing his experience and supported the researcher in accomplishing a fusion of horizons. The interview framework invited stories from different important contexts and having stories from across time, place, and activity enabled the researcher to identify themes. Clarity about themes meant that important stories could be interpreted with more confidence. Keywords: hermeneutics; pre-interview activities; case studies; interpretive inquiry; open-ended interview questions Dans le cadre d'une enquête interprétative, les chercheurs ont besoin d'approches aux entrevues qui créent des possibilités de compréhension holistique et de vision. Un protocole d'entrevue herméneutique a été développé et affiné pendant plusieurs années dans le contexte d'un cours sur l'enquête interprétative. Dans cette étude, l'une des auteures examine son expérience de l'utilisation de ce cadre d'entrevue dans une enquête pratique pour sa recherche sur les "conceptions de l'enfant" dans les mariages interculturels. L'étude identifie les réticences et les doutes qu'elle a éprouvés avant et pendant l'entrevue. L’étude illustre également dans quelle mesure la structure de l'entrevue a aidé le participant à réfléchir et à reconstruire son expérience et a aidé la chercheure à réaliser une fusion des horizons. Le cadre de l'entrevue invitait à raconter des histoires provenant de différents contextes importants et le fait d'avoir des histoires à travers le temps, le lieu et l'activité a permis à la chercheure d'identifier des thèmes. La précision des thèmes a permis d'interpréter les histoires importantes avec plus de confiance. Mots clés : herméneutique ; activités de pré-entrevue ; études de cas ; enquête interprétative ; questions d'entrevue ouvertes
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 | 0.315 | 0.276 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".