Who am I and what do I want? :using interpretative phenomenological analysis to investigate the experiences of young men growing up in a rural community. Reflections on identity and aspirations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study uses qualitative methodology with five male participants, aged between 14 and 18, to obtain their perceptions of what it is like to be a young man growing up in a rural community. In preparation for the research element of this piece, literature from developmental and social psychology, human geography and social policy was considered. Previous research from other countries with large rural populations, Canada, Australia and the United States was considered along with other British and European studies. Main topics of focus include notions of identity, aspiration and attachment to place, together with other concepts relating to social capital, positive youth development and subjective well-being. Current and previous UK government policy is debated together with a review of the role of educational psychologists. There is also discussion over their potential role in post school transition, with particular reference to their development in Scotland. A pilot study and main study were carried out with homogeneous populations. The findings from both pilot and main study are discussed. Data generation methods were photo elicitation and semi structured interviews. Participants generated and selected images that they wished to discuss to illustrate the research question. The research question was What is it like to be a young man growing up in a rural community? ' Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis was used to examine the data. Findings from this study indicated that, for these participants, the experience of growing up in a rural community is complex with many factors playing their part, including family support, feelings of attachment to the locality, out of school experiences and how happy they feel about themselves. Their revelations about aspiration show that it is an holistic construct for these participants encompassing more than economic and academic goals.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".