Bibliographic record
Abstract
Narrative inquiry has been widely used in different disciplines around the world. In this article, we focus on narrative inquiry in China where we start by retelling our first close contact with narrative researchers in China in 2007 when Professor Gang Ding at East China Normal University invited leading Chinese researchers to a three-day narrative inquiry workshop co-planned with us (Connelly and Xu). Second, we review narrative studies published in Chinese to demonstrate how widely narrative inquiry has been adopted in educational studies in the country in the past two decades by Chinese university researchers, graduate students, and schoolteachers. Next, our review of English literature of narrative studies related to education in China has two important components: English literature on narrative inquiry contextualized in China and narrative inquiry for reciprocal learning in teacher education and school education between Canada and China. Both reveal how narrative inquiry has contributed to international cross-cultural educational studies related to Chinese contexts. Finally, in the “Discussion” section, we provide our interpretation of some current dialogs on narrative inquiry among Chinese educational researchers; for example, the differences between yanjiu 研究 ( research ) and tanjiu 探究 ( inquiry ). Some heated discussions surrounding narrative inquiry in China are also highlighted, including: (1) cultural complexities in narrative inquiry, (2) theoretical frameworks in narrative inquiry, (3) re-storying and fictionalization processes in narrative inquiry, and (4) ethical considerations in narrative inquiry. To conclude, with cases selected and elaborated from the Canada-China partnership, we demonstrate how narrative inquiry has enabled us to develop “reciprocal learning” as both a conceptual framework and a methodological approach to building a multidimensional bridge for reciprocal learning in education between the West and East. This Reciprocal Learning approach reflects our global comparative studies view that the path to global cross-cultural harmony and understanding lies with collaborative action plans among people of different cultures. Writing this article on narrative inquiry in China enabled us to reflect on and learn from narrative inquirers and researchers in China while sharing what we have done in our own narrative inquiry.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".