Grounded in liquidity: writing and identity in third space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we argue that writing for publication has the potential to support the creation, negotiation and stabilisation of the professional identities of third space practitioners in higher education. Caught in the impermanence and unpredictability of liquid life, third space opens up unique opportunities in writing that afford its practitioners a means of building and sustaining identity. It expands academic writing beyond its normative constraints, creating a tension between the apparent permanence and solidity of writing and the liquidity that allows for the negotiation of meaning and identity. As such, writing, particularly for dissemination, provides third space practitioners with a strategy for creating a grounding narrative that helps to stabilise their own identity while allowing the flexibility required by a ‘liquid’ and uncertain present. We explore this process of negotiation by examining the role of writing in identity formation from the perspective of a range of third space practitioners, in an international triple-site qualitative research study involving learning developers, learning designers, academic developers and writing specialists. Our findings reveal that writing, as an act of negotiation of identity in third space, has the potential to actuate the fluidity of the space, so that it can become a site of liberation and resistance that may transform the very act of scholarly writing. What our study shows is that writing offers third space practitioners an opportunity to establish a narrative thread that may stabilise their liquid roles in academia.
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 | 0.035 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".