MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Keeping Qualitative Weird: Resisting the Objectification of Qualitative Research

2024· article· en· W4400444445 on OpenAlexaff
Hans Hansen, Anne D. Smith, Benjamin Nathan Alexander, Marcos Barros, Sara R. S. T. A. Elias, Jean M. Bartunek, Karen Golden‐Biddle, Robert P. Gephart, Dirk Lindebaum, Anna J. Stevenson

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObjectificationQualitative researchPsychologySociologyEpistemologyPhilosophySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This panel symposium hopes to offer an insightful discussion about how we can avoid the objectification of qualitative research by “keeping it weird.” After outlining current problems in published qualitative research, we will open a space for dialogue where panelists in editorial roles, as well as the audience, will interactively discuss and explore practical suggestions for resisting objectification in qualitative research in journal publications. We hope to discuss ways we might regain qualitative research’s distinct method of embracing subjectivity and leveraging its differences, which we believe contribute to impactful and interesting research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.122
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1220.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.645
GPT teacher head0.687
Teacher spread0.041 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207