Critical posthumanisms, postqualitative inquiry, and conventional qualitative research: some interrogations and contemplations on their entangled identities and futurities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Work conducted in the critical posthumanisms and postqualitative inquiry (i.e., the posts) has expanded in many fields, including psychology. Despite claims that the posts can help inquirers venture beyond the purported limits of conventional qualitative research (i.e., the conventional), the posts are not absolved of questioning. The present paper experiments with cascade questioning to interrogate what is with the intent to instigate what could be by contemplating the entangled identity politics of the conventional/posts. The paper begins with an introductory anecdote, followed by conjectures on identity and politics. Six interrogations/contemplations are then offered. The first five interrogations/contemplations present key criticisms that have been attributed to the conventional and the posts. The paper subsequently adopts a more conciliatory tone, with the sixth interrogation/contemplation (i.e., envisioning entangled futurities for methodology) positioning the conventional/posts not as antagonists but as always already entangled in their coarticulated becomings. Implications for the human subject and for psychology are offered, followed by concluding thoughts. Ultimately, if the posts are to fulfil their political promise, they must remain nimble and open for debate by constantly challenging the identities they erect and the futurities they create relative to the conventional.
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 | 0.084 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.116 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".