Authenticity, legitimacy and power:Critical ethnography and identity politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the methodological issues in conducting critical ethnographic research on Italian Canadian youths’ discursive negotiation of identities, language and power across and within the Italian Canadian world in Toronto. My multiples and forms of linguistic and cultural capital were important points that participants’ engaged with that also positioned me in particular ways that created methodological dilemmas in relation to: (i) access to the field; (ii) being seen as an ‘insider/outsider’ to this community; and (iii) the ways in which I constructed the discourses of Italianness through my data analysis. The way in which participants negotiated power had consequences for my role as a researcher and the identities I was permitted to claim across the research sites. These are important methodological points of analysis that raise wider issues relating to how researchers construct, negotiate relationships when conducting fieldwork, and the way in which power is negotiated and not always ‘held’ by the researcher within the research. As critical ethnographers there is a need to shed light on the ways in which researcher identities and positionality play a crucial role in the production and construction of data within 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
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 | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.095 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".