Reflections on Researcher’s Positionality and the Evolving Role of Research Participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this piece, we reflect on the unforeseen conditions and interactions that shaped our research experiences, bringing into focus the fluidity of one’s positionality and the evolving role of research participants across the research continuum. By drawing on ethnographic fieldnotes, Nataliia Stepaniuk (Ukrainian-Canadian) reflects on returning to her home country of Ukraine in 2015 to study civilian mobilization amidst the Donbas war, highlighting multiple roles of her interlocutors in molding her research. Next, Golrokh Niazi (Iranian-Canadian) discusses conducting fieldwork in 2016–2017 in post-revolutionary Tunisia while being confronted with the complexities of her shifting “insider/outsider” status, as well as the central role of her local network in guiding the trajectory of her project towards a new line of inquiry. Jointly, these reflections offer insights into the fundamental role of research participants and the importance of our interpersonal relationships in successfully navigating the field and generating ethnographic findings.
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 | 0.138 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| 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".