Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lone HerstedIn times of crisis at many levels and increasing uncertainty and unpredictability in theworld, action researchersp ersistently continue to work in projectsf or societal transformation, democracy, human rights, social justice, education and development in communitiesa nd organizations.The movemento fa ction research is continuing despiteo fp olitical,s ocietal, structural and financial constraints.In this volume of IJAR we present five very different articles on action research from differentp arts of the world: The United States, Argentina, Spain, Canada and Denmark and, as well, areview of anew exciting book, which we consider highly relevantfor people working with action research and related inquiries.The first article in this issueisatheoretical contribution to thefieldofaction researchand is written by Kenneth J. Gergen from the US.In hisa rticle,w hich has thet itle, "Action Research as Process-BasedKnowing", Gergen argues for arelational process paradigm as a foundation for action research and related approaches to research.Heargues that in our times of crisis, in as ocial world characterized by rapid change and continuous and unpredictable disruption, there is ap articular need for action research and related collaborativer esearch inquiries based on ar elational process-oriented way of thinking.Instead of describing the here-and-now, by trying to mirror the world or predict the future, ar elational process orientation focuses on being in the process of becoming within theongoing flow of unpredictable change.Gergen argues for action research as futureforming,asprocess-based knowing aimed at transformation, whichm eans ak ind of research which can actively bring about desired futures and maybe even inspire for transformation at policyl evel.H ep ointso ut that we're embedded in afluidworld of rapid and chaotic change, and he argues that research shouldbea matter of participatory realization of transformation, rather than attemptstodescribe or predict aworld of fixed entities.Gergen understands patterns of behaviour, traditions, and institutions as co-created human constructions, which are not fixed, but open to change through collaborativeparticipation -for instance through action research.In hisarticle, Gergen argues that action research represents arelational ethicinpractice, whereas it cares for thequality of the relationships in the process, and the co-creation of social change fort he common good.He also points out that, the outcomes of action research will always be in process and should never be considered as finalized.Gergen explains in hisa rticle that, ar elational process paradigm of knowledgem ust "remain open to continuous unfolding as relations among participants and the temporal context continue to change".His analysis in this article is based on four overall assumptions concerning pragmatic potential, ontology,e pistemology,a nd ethics.The seconda rticle is carrying the title "Systematisationo fe xperiences and its contribution to Action Research: Transformative knowledge in aprocess of territorial develop-mentinLatin America" and is written by Erica Porras and Mariana Chrestia from Argentina.
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 | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.016 |
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".