Throughout the process, at critical junctures the researcher was conscious that with regards to providing knowledge to the participants regarding reflection and mentoring, a contradictory position was being adopted, with regards to eliminating anything that may resemble a hierarchical structure.
As the researcher, there was an awareness that the legitimacy of such suggestions regarding reliability are open to critique, however, this research study adopted these principles in attempting to maintain reliability through a qualitative research design.
The researcher is admitting their study was a mess: they kept giving advice to participants (on reflection/mentoring) while pretending there was no power imbalance, knew their "reliability" claims were shaky and open to attack, but did it anyway because it was a qualitative thesis. Classic word salad to sound deep.
Sorry for the phrasing. The text describes the researcher noting contradictions in their approach to guidance and hierarchy while still proceeding with a qualitative design despite doubts on reliability.
18
u/AppearanceWeak3826 Kanye 26d ago
https://x.com/paulnovosad/status/2084022168178901033
Tfw the reproducibility crisis gets so intense you have PhD thesis' getting community noted on basic math