"I Don't Like Ambiguity": An Exploration of Students' Experiences During a Qualitative Methods Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although some of the literature on teaching qualitative research methods courses has included students' experiences during courses, these experiences have not been made a primary focus of study and examined systematically. To gain a fuller understanding of students' experiences during a graduate-level qualitative methods course, 13 reflective journals were analyzed. Eight major categories emerged from the analysis: (a) struggling with a new paradigm, (b) changes in perspective on quantitative research, (c) struggling with phenomenological and other qualitative concepts and practices, (d) becoming more aware of one's role in the research process, (e) challenges faced during the research process, (f) gaining new insights into the research process, (g) gaining new insights into phenomenology and the qualitative paradigm, and (h) valuing phenomenological and other forms of qualitative research. Implications of the findings for designing and teaching qualitative methods courses are also discussed.
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 | 0.041 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".