Approaches to qualitative research : a reader on theory and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I. DISTINGUISHING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 1: Egon G. Guba and Yvonna S. Lincoln: Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues 2: Joey Sprague and Mary Zimmerman: Overcoming Dualisms: A Feminist Agenda for Sociological Methodology 3: Sandra Harding: How Standpoint Methodology Informs Philosophy of Social Science 4: Mark R. Rank: The Blending of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Understanding Childbearing among Welfare Recipients 5: Deborah L. Tolman and Laura Szalacha: Dimensions of Desire: Bridging Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in a Study of Female Adolescent Sexuality II. INTERACTION AND POSITIONALITY WITHIN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 6: bell hooks: Culture to Culture: Ethnography and Cultural Studies as Critical Intervention 7: Barrie Thorne: You Still Takin' Notes? Fieldwork and Problems of Informed Consent 8: Kath Weston: Fieldwork in Lesbian and Gay Communities 9: William L. Miller and Benjamin F. Crabtree: Depth Interviewing 10: Charles A. Gallagher: Like Me? Methods, Meaning, and Manipulation in the Field of White Studies 11: Kathryn Anderson, Susan Armitage, Dana Jack, and Judith Wittner: Beginning Where We Are: Feminist Methodology in Oral History 12: Ingrid Botting: Understanding Domestic Service through Orla History and the Census: The Case of Grand Falls, Newfoundland 13: David L. Morgan: Focus Groups 14: Peter McDermott and Julia Rothenberg: Why Urban Parents Resist Involvement in Their Children's Elementary Education III. UNOBTRUSIVE METHODS, VISUAL RESEARCH, AND CULTURAL STUDIES 15: Lindsay Prior: Following in Foucault's Footsteps: Text and Context in Qualitative Research 16: Jon Prosser and Dona Schwartz: Photographs wihtin the Sociological Research Project 17: Diana Rose: Analyses of Moving Images 18: Chris Mann and Fiona Stewart: Introducing Online Methods 19: Denna Harmon and Scot B. Boeringer: A Content Analysis of Internet-Accessible Written Pornographic Depictions IV. ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION, AND THE WRITING OF QUALITATIVE DATA 20: John Van Maanen: An End to Innocence: The Ethnography of Ethnography 21: Norman K. Denzin: The Art and Politics of Interpretation 22: Laural Richardson: Writing: A Method of Inquiry 23: Kathy Charmaz: Grounded Theory 24: Katherine Borland: That's Not What I Said: Interpretive Conflict in Oral Narrative Research 25: Sharlene Hesse-Biber: Unleashing Frankenstein's Monster? The Use of Computers in Qualitative 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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | medium |
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 | 0.093 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.010 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".