Reconciliation of Philosophical Perspectives to Address Autoethnographic Methodological Concerns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An instance of editorial work was found to address methodological issues at the juncture of autoethnography and narrative inquiry. The particular case is reported because it addresses the conceptual basis of known methodological issues. The case involved interactions between a chapter author and editors of a book as well as between the editors. Although the chapter was autoethnographic as initially submitted, through the use of research-oriented open-ended questioning, the editors engaged with the author causing the author to gain a deeper insight and richer narrative regarding his own experience. The result bridges the gap between autoethnography and narrative inquiry. Interactions between the editors were directed at providing constructive support while leaving ownership of the narrative with the author. The process has features overlapping and distinct from duoethnography. An empirical explanation is proposed through the reconciliation of philosophical stances of the author and editors. Key words: Autoethnography, narrative inquiry, emergent design, duoethnography, editorial methodology Un exemple de travail éditorial a permis d’aborder des questions méthodologiques à la jonction de l’autoethnographie et de l’enquête narrative. Le cas particulier à l’étude porte sur la base conceptuelle de questions méthodologiques connues. Le cas implique des interactions entre l’auteur d’un chapitre et les éditeurs d’un livre, ainsi que des interactions entre les éditeurs. Bien que le chapitre ait été autoethnographique lors de la soumission initiale, l’emploi par les éditeurs de questions ouvertes axées sur la recherche et communiquées à l’auteur lui a permis d’arriver à des connaissances approfondies et à un récit enrichi relativement à ses propres expériences. Les résultats jettent un pont entre l’autoethnographie et l’enquête narrative. Les interactions entre les éditeurs visaient à apporter un appui constructif tout en permettant à l’auteur de conserver son récit. Certaines caractéristiques du processus chevauchent la duoethnographie; d’autres s’en distinguent. Nous proposons une explication empirique née de la réconciliation des positions philosophiques de l’auteur et des éditeurs. Mots clés: autoethnographie, enquête narrative, modèle émergent, duoethnographie, méthodologie éditoriale
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 | 0.159 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".