Meilleures pratiques agiles, leadership éclairé impact collectif impact investir dans les familles. Et égalité des chances vibrante, la, narration les métadonnées de synergie sont un défi sans précédent pour B-corp. Entreprise la philanthropie cultive l’impact et la situation actuelle; livre blanc en collaboration consommation entrepreneur des villes collaboratives inclusives. Parse empower mouvements de communautés ciblés; radical; résultats de problèmes d'entreprise sociale la philanthropie du big data.
Reflexivity is central to qualitative research. It shapes how researchers interpret data, examine positionality, engage with participants, and justify analytic decisions. In this article, I introduce hybrid reflexivity, a framework in which reflective practice is structured through researcher guided interaction with generative large language models (LLMs). Building on FINLAY's (2002) typology, I consider algorithmically mediated prompting as a structured analytic intervention to make inferential movements explicit and open to systematic comparison. Within this framework, LLMs function as provisional interlocutors whose patterned responses can generate counter-readings, surface tacit assumptions, and amplify deficit framings for inspection. Interpretive responsibility remains with the researcher who evaluates generated extensions against primary transcripts and theoretical commitments. Drawing on examples from language teacher identity research, I demonstrate how LLM-mediated exchanges can stabilize, redirect, or intensify discursive cues, prompting closer scrutiny of escalation, affect, and authority. I conclude by outlining methodological and ethical considerations and position hybrid reflexivity as a documented and inspectable extension of reflexive practice to support analytic transparency without displacing human judgment.
In this review essay, I examine Franz SCHULTHEIS' book "Forschen mit Bourdieu. Werkstattbesuche 1958-2002.“ In particular, the extent to which SCHULTHEIS adequately contextualizes or even sociologically objectifies Pierre BOURDIEU's collective research practice is discussed, an aim explicitly stated by SCHULTHEIS. While he provides a rich and vivid account of collective research, it is argued that the analysis largely remains anchored in an internal perspective of the research collective. Key concepts and methods drawn from BOURDIEU's own theoretical framework are repeatedly invoked, yet they are rarely applied, for example, to the analysis of power relations. Structured around three thematic focal points—the portrayal of leadership and collaboration, claims to methodological innovation, and the strongly functional description of BOURDIEU's publication outlets—the descriptive strengths of the book are highlighted while identifying analytical gaps. When measured against its own stated objectives, SCHULTHEIS privileges description over reflexive distance and thus falls short of an objectification of the conditions, dynamics, and effects of collective research.
AIAgents4Qual 2026 war eine eintägige virtuelle Konferenz, die als methodisches Experiment angelegt war. Im Mittelpunkt stand die Frage, was geschieht, wenn generative KI in der qualitativen Forschung anders als in den meisten aktuellen Ansätzen nicht vor allem als Hilfsmittel für Forschende verstanden wird, sondern KI-Systeme selbst zu den primären Akteuren der Analyse-, Schreib- und Begutachtungsprozesse werden. In diesem Bericht schreiben wir über die Diskussionen, die während der Tagung stattgefunden haben, erläutern den Begutachtungsprozess und bündeln zentrale Themen, die sich aus den Präsentationen und Diskussionen ergaben. Dazu gehören die veränderte Rolle der Forschenden, die Herausforderungen bei der Bewertung KI-generierter Arbeiten, Spannungen zwischen Effizienz und methodischer Transparenz, die körperlich-relationale Erfahrung der Arbeit mit KI sowie Fragen von Autor*innenschaft und Verantwortung.
In recent debates in qualitative research, it has been emphasized that methods are not merely collections of techniques, but socially stabilized ways of making knowledge claims intelligible. In this paper, I intervene at this meta-methodological level by examining what it means for a qualitative method to claim philosophical grounding. Rather than evaluating empirical results, I ask under what conditions an appeal to a philosophical source can function as a genuine grounding relation. Specifically, the case examined is Max VAN MANEN's phenomenological methodology, who presented Edmund HUSSERL as a point of departure. Through textual analysis of how VAN MANEN portrays HUSSERL's accounts of the epoché, transcendental reduction, and intentionality, I show that VAN MANEN misrepresented HUSSERL's own concepts. Because the figure named "HUSSERL" no longer corresponded to HUSSERL's own project, VAN MANEN could not claim Husserlian grounding and could not serve as a basis for researchers who seek such grounding themselves.
