{ "schema_version": "1.0", "map_id": "JW-RESEARCH-MAP-001", "title": "Research Maps & Scholarly Journey", "updated": "2026-10-19", "status": "Public research agenda — proposed directions", "canonical_url": "https://cv.jermainewhiteside.com/research/maps/", "scope_note": "A curated map of research themes and applied settings. Not an exhaustive register of all projects. Lab inclusion does not establish a completed study, validated instrument, research approval, or journal affiliation.", "strands": [ { "id": "governance", "name": "Governance & trust", "description": "Authority, accountability, and institutional capacity" }, { "id": "ai", "name": "Faithful Intelligence", "description": "Human agency and responsible AI collaboration" }, { "id": "evidence", "name": "Evidence & verification", "description": "Traceable records and reliable scholarly information" }, { "id": "learning", "name": "Learning & formation", "description": "Instructional access, understanding, and leadership" }, { "id": "practice", "name": "Applied organizational research", "description": "Field settings for testing and refining ideas" } ], "directions": [ { "id": "praxis", "strand": "governance", "lab": "Praxis Lab & ministry governance", "question": "How do documented authority and review processes support accountable leadership?", "foundation": "Dissertation-in-Praxis; constitutional fidelity; distributed accountability", "article": "Longitudinal case study", "evidence_needed": "Implementation records, decision timelines, policy-to-practice comparisons, and independently coded evidence.", "publication_direction": "Quality Assurance in Education, where educational quality is central; specialist governance venue to be screened.", "next_step": "Define the implementation question and confirm the scope of the institutional determination.", "source_url": "/dissertation/", "status": "Proposed research direction", "submission_status": "No submission or acceptance asserted by this map" }, { "id": "trust", "strand": "governance", "lab": "Institutional Trust Index & land-grant research", "question": "How can institutional trust be measured and related to strategic capacity?", "foundation": "Institutional Trust Index; Beyond Funding Formulas", "article": "Instrument development and comparative institutional research", "evidence_needed": "Construct definitions, expert review, reliable measures, and suitable institutional samples.", "publication_direction": "Quality Assurance in Education; specialist higher-education venue to be screened.", "next_step": "Separate index development from later tests of institutional outcomes.", "source_url": "/publications/", "status": "Proposed research direction", "submission_status": "No submission or acceptance asserted by this map" }, { "id": "fi", "strand": "ai", "lab": "Faithful Intelligence theory", "question": "How should human responsibility operate in AI-supported learning and leadership?", "foundation": "Faithful Intelligence Theory; theological AI governance; Beyond QuantCrit", "article": "Conceptual theory development", "evidence_needed": "Clear constructs, engagement with established scholarship, boundary conditions, and testable propositions.", "publication_direction": "AI & Society.", "next_step": "Identify the framework’s explanatory contribution and competing explanations.", "source_url": "https://anointededu.com/b/cxJoP", "status": "Proposed research direction", "submission_status": "No submission or acceptance asserted by this map" }, { "id": "ai-review", "strand": "ai", "lab": "AI Failure Register & human review", "question": "When does structured human review reduce unsupported AI claims?", "foundation": "Verification Architecture; AI Failure Register", "article": "Comparative evaluation", "evidence_needed": "A complete task denominator, independently rated outputs, model/version records, residual errors, and review time.", "publication_direction": "AI & Society; Journal of Systems and Software for a software engineering contribution.", "next_step": "Build a prospective benchmark; an incident register alone cannot estimate an overall failure rate.", "source_url": "/ai-failures/", "status": "Proposed research direction", "submission_status": "No submission or acceptance asserted by this map" }, { "id": "continuity", "strand": "ai", "lab": "AI continuity & cross-model handoff", "question": "Can governed external context improve reconstruction of tasks and constraints?", "foundation": "AI deployment context and planned cold-start tests", "article": "Controlled cross-model experiment", "evidence_needed": "Frozen control packages, equivalent tasks, independent scoring, constraint retention, and intervention burden.", "publication_direction": "Journal of Systems and Software, subject to software engineering contribution.", "next_step": "Specify comparison conditions and a reproducible acceptance rubric.", "source_url": "/AI_DEPLOYMENT_CONTEXT.md", "status": "Proposed research direction", "submission_status": "No submission or acceptance asserted by this map" }, { "id": "accounting", "strand": "evidence", "lab": "Accounting Lab & evidence ingestion", "question": "Does separating records, machine derivatives, and reviewer claims improve reconstruction?", "foundation": "Questions, Not Accusations; provenance-preserving workflows", "article": "System design and empirical evaluation", "evidence_needed": "Authorized or synthetic records, a baseline workflow, provenance completeness, extraction errors, and reconstruction time.", "publication_direction": "Journal of Systems and Software; Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change for accounting practice.", "next_step": "Evaluate the architecture; established hashing techniques alone do not establish novelty or authenticity.", "source_url": "/applied/", "status": "Proposed research direction", "submission_status": "No submission or acceptance asserted by this map" }, { "id": "claims", "strand": "evidence", "lab": "Five-tier claim boundaries", "question": "Can independent reviewers consistently distinguish activity, evidence, and outcome claims?", "foundation": "Proposed C0–C4 claim-boundary system", "article": "Measurement development and reliability study", "evidence_needed": "Operational definitions, independently coded cases, agreement estimates, and disagreement analysis.", "publication_direction": "Quality Assurance in Education for an educational application.", "next_step": "Establish classification reliability before testing organizational effects.", "source_url": "/applied/", "status": "Proposed research direction", "submission_status": "No submission or acceptance asserted by this map" }, { "id": "scholarship", "strand": "evidence", "lab": "Evidence CV, AI-readable scholarship & AI Data Center", "question": "Do structured evidence links improve verification and scholarly retrieval?", "foundation": "AI-readable editions; Evidence CV; repository and machine manifests", "article": "Information-system evaluation", "evidence_needed": "Fixed retrieval tasks, comparison versions, citation accuracy, verification time, and public reproducibility materials.", "publication_direction": "Information and Learning Sciences where information use and learning are central.", "next_step": "Distinguish discoverability, factual accuracy, and actual scholarly reuse.", "source_url": "https://ai.anointededu.com/", "status": "Proposed research direction", "submission_status": "No submission or acceptance asserted by this map" }, { "id": "wlrs", "strand": "evidence", "lab": "Whiteside Literature Review Standard", "question": "Does a structured review standard improve transparency and reproducibility?", "foundation": "WLRS v2.0", "article": "Methods evaluation", "evidence_needed": "Independent reviews, an established comparator, predefined quality criteria, and an auditable search record.", "publication_direction": "Methods or information-science venue to be screened.", "next_step": "Position the standard against established review methods.", "source_url": "/publications/", "status": "Proposed research direction", "submission_status": "No submission or acceptance asserted by this map" }, { "id": "ats", "strand": "learning", "lab": "ATS & Faithful Church Leadership", "question": "What do learners understand, retain, and apply through short leadership courses?", "foundation": "Christian leadership formation and course development", "article": "Educational design and evaluation", "evidence_needed": "Aligned assessments, delayed follow-up, application evidence, and documented instructional design.", "publication_direction": "Journal of Research on Christian Education; Educational Technology Research and Development where technology/design is central.", "next_step": "Choose a bounded learning outcome and confirm suitable research permissions.", "source_url": "https://anointededu.org/", "status": "Proposed research direction", "submission_status": "No submission or acceptance asserted by this map" }, { "id": "access", "strand": "learning", "lab": "Instructional access & faculty perspectives", "question": "Which supports turn online access into meaningful participation?", "foundation": "Instructional Access at the Point of Need; Beyond Online Access", "article": "Conceptual synthesis or educational inquiry", "evidence_needed": "Clearly bounded faculty perspectives, instructional artifacts, and an appropriate analysis of access and participation.", "publication_direction": "Information and Learning Sciences; Educational Technology Research and Development.", "next_step": "Protect identities and distinguish author reflection from participant research.", "source_url": "/publications/", "status": "Proposed research direction", "submission_status": "No submission or acceptance asserted by this map" }, { "id": "y", "strand": "learning", "lab": "Y learning initiatives & mathematics", "question": "How do guided practice and feedback support transfer beyond rehearsed tasks?", "foundation": "Finance, accounting, driving education, and From Procedure to Understanding", "article": "Subject-specific educational design research", "evidence_needed": "Authentic transfer tasks, baseline understanding, follow-up, and research permissions appropriate to learners.", "publication_direction": "Educational Technology Research and Development when instructional technology is central; subject venues to be screened.", "next_step": "Keep developmental learning records separate from a formally designed research dataset.", "source_url": "/research/", "status": "Proposed research direction", "submission_status": "No submission or acceptance asserted by this map" }, { "id": "applewood", "strand": "practice", "lab": "Applewood operational research", "question": "Which workflow changes improve service reliability and organizational accountability?", "foundation": "Applewood research constitution; audit-safe governance and exit pathways", "article": "Longitudinal organizational case study", "evidence_needed": "Stable operational measures, intervention dates, reconciliation evidence, missingness records, and competing explanations.", "publication_direction": "Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change when accounting/control practices are central.", "next_step": "Define denominators and an authorized, de-identified analysis dataset.", "source_url": "/applied/", "status": "Proposed research direction", "submission_status": "No submission or acceptance asserted by this map" }, { "id": "quality", "strand": "practice", "lab": "SGHG, IAM & readiness improvement", "question": "What does a proposed readiness framework add to established improvement methods?", "foundation": "SGHG Six Sigma; IAM Six Sigma; Readiness Audit-Control Ecosystem / DMAIC-R", "article": "Comparative process-improvement study", "evidence_needed": "Baseline performance, intervention fidelity, sustained outcomes, and a clearly described comparator.", "publication_direction": "Organizational-change or specialist quality venue to be screened.", "next_step": "Demonstrate added value beyond relabeling established improvement steps.", "source_url": "/publications/", "status": "Proposed research direction", "submission_status": "No submission or acceptance asserted by this map" }, { "id": "policy", "strand": "practice", "lab": "Community partnerships & applied policy", "question": "How do institutional arrangements shape access, authority, and community outcomes?", "foundation": "Estate planning; community and senior housing; judicial governance; chaplain authority; emergency powers; healthcare competition", "article": "Separate policy, doctrinal, or empirical studies", "evidence_needed": "Question-specific public records, a defensible analytical method, and clear limits on causal or legal claims.", "publication_direction": "Specialist policy, governance, religion, or health-policy venue to be screened for each manuscript.", "next_step": "Treat each policy topic as a distinct disciplinary submission; partnership outreach is not outcome evidence.", "source_url": "/publications/", "status": "Proposed research direction", "submission_status": "No submission or acceptance asserted by this map" } ], "journey": [ "Frame the question", "Develop the method", "Evaluate in context", "Submit for peer review", "Share and extend" ], "status_rule": "Advance study or submission status only against a dated supporting record.", "methodology": { "id": "JW-RESEARCH-METHOD-001", "title": "Research methodology", "status": "Proposed methodological approach", "protocol_version": "0.1", "updated": "2026-10-19", "purpose": "Translate applied experience into bounded research questions, explicit methods, and evidence that others can inspect and test.", "principles": [ { "title": "Define the question and contribution", "description": "State what the study seeks to explain or evaluate, engage with established scholarship, and identify the limits of the intended contribution." }, { "title": "Document implementation and readiness", "description": "Distinguish inspected code, planned features, executed tests, and observed field behavior. Preserve the source revision and environment used for each evaluation." }, { "title": "Specify the design before evaluation", "description": "Define units of analysis, comparison conditions, sampling, reference answers, outcomes, and analysis before the main study. Separate development observations from confirmatory data." }, { "title": "Preserve evidence and scoped interpretation", "description": "Keep source records, machine-derived representations, reviewer statements, and final findings distinguishable. Record source version, location, attribution, scope, and limitations." }, { "title": "Evaluate independently and report uncertainty", "description": "Use independent scoring where appropriate. Report denominators, failures, missingness, effect sizes, uncertainty, and plausible alternative explanations." }, { "title": "Protect participants and support reproduction", "description": "Resolve study-specific institutional requirements and permissions. Share permitted methods, synthetic materials, analysis procedures, and documented limitations." } ], "pilot": { "title": "Accounting evidence workflow study", "status": "Prospective protocol v0.1 — evaluation not yet completed", "question": "Does separating source records, machine derivatives, and reviewer claims improve correct evidence reconstruction compared with an indexed document workflow?", "design": "A staged implementation audit, synthetic technical benchmark, and subsequent comparative reviewer study. Reviewer tasks would use counterbalanced conditions and different matched evidence bundles.", "primary_measure": "Reconstruction accuracy: correct source, version, page, representation type, and appropriately bounded conclusion, judged against an independently prepared reference.", "secondary_measures": [ "Unsupported conclusion rate", "Task duration and completion rate", "Provenance completeness", "Alteration detection and false alerts", "Unknown-value fidelity", "Authorization challenge outcomes", "Review scope fidelity" ], "analysis": "Account for observations clustered within reviewers and evidence bundles. Report effect sizes and uncertainty, retain failed tasks, and distinguish exploratory analyses from prespecified comparisons.", "readiness": "Final software build, feature verification, frozen corpus, scoring rubric, justified sample size, reviewer eligibility, applicable institutional determination and permissions, and a dated analysis plan remain to be established before confirmatory execution.", "hash_boundary": "SHA-256 checks support detection of changed bytes relative to a trusted reference. A matching digest does not by itself establish authenticity, source truth, immutable storage, fraud prevention, or professional approval.", "scope_boundary": "The protocol evaluates traceability and review behavior. It does not establish accounting correctness, audit assurance, or proven organizational outcomes." }, "reference": { "author": "National Institute of Standards and Technology", "year": "2015", "title": "Secure Hash Standard", "url": "https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.180-4" }, "status_rule": "Plans become findings only when a dated study record supports the change. A methodology section does not confer research approval or peer-review status." } }