Dilemmas in embodied methods: Towards holistic description in qualitative research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our bodily experience is a recognised conduit to understanding our social world and those who dwell within it. Concurrently, embodied research emerged as a legitimate and thought-provoking methodological approach that goes further to access depth in understanding than more distanced approaches. Yet such methods imply a closeness with the participants and context that raises some philosophical and ethical dilemmas. This paper aims to engage with these debates using examples from the author's experiences conducting embodied research in various global locales in the broad field of sport and physical culture. A conceptual model is built and employed in these discussions, and in doing so, the concept of ‘holistic description’ is developed to highlight the potential of embodied methodologies to engender further trust between the researcher, the reader and participants. It is hoped these developments will embolden researchers thinking about embodied research with further confidence and knowledge to pursue such involved and empathetic routes to knowing while staying true to the fundamental principles of qualitative enquiry.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.438 | 0.248 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it