The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm
Abstract
This article starts with a critique of Guba and Lincoln's outline of competing paradigms for research, in particular arguing that the constructivist position fails to account for experiential knowing. The arguments for a participatory worldview are articulated based on a subjective-objective ontology; an extended epistemology of experiential, presentational, propositional, and practical ways of knowing; a methodology based on cooperative relations between coresearchers; and an axiology that affirms the primary value of practical knowing in the service of human flourishing.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (2017) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262529365.001.0001 · Cited by 2,449
Cited by
Political, epistemological, ecological and spiritual dimensions of participation
Reason, P. (1998) · Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies · doi:10.1080/10245289808523509 · Cited by 105
Self-citationMixing methods as a process towards indigenous methodologies
Botha, L. (2011) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/13645579.2010.516644 · Cited by 102
A framework for entry: PAR values and engagement strategies in community research
Ochocka, J., Moorlag, E., & Janzen, R. (2010) · Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement · doi:10.5130/ijcre.v3i0.1328 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Heron, J., & Reason, P.
- Venue
- Qualitative Inquiry
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1997-09
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 274-294
- ISSN
- 1077-8004 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7565
- OpenAlex
- W2118875070
- Cited by
- 1,277
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 51.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
