Editors’ note on special issue on indigenous knowledges, priorities and processes in qualitative research
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Editors' note on special issue on indigenous knowledges, priorities and processes in qualitative research Though scholarship on Indigenous organizations, practices and methodologies is rapidly growing alongside the burgeoning sub-discipline of Indigenous business and management, such research is not often reported in "mainstream journals."Rather, the research is commonly concentrated in Indigenous-or ethnic-focused journals.Recognizing the importance of these topics for all scholars, the editors of the journal of Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management invited us (the guest editors) to conceive of a special issue that would enable qualitative researchers and organizational management scholars to engage with the richness of Indigenous ways of knowing and the innovations resulting from methodologies that honour centuries-old knowledge and wisdom.As researchers of Indigenous organizations, management and policy, we called for a special issue that would bring Indigenous knowledges and methodologies to the broader discussion of qualitative methods in organizations and management.During the past decades, there have been important contributions to qualitative research methodologies for research in Indigenous contexts.Alongside the emergence of Indigenous ethics review boards in institutions, scholars have suggested ethical frameworks for research with Indigenous peoples (e.g.Ellis and Earley, 2006 on issues of consent and reciprocity).Increasingly, researchers are engaging in applied research that is useful to the communities involved, employing action research methods to solve problems (see Carpenter and McMurchy-Pilkington, 2008).Relationships between researchers and research participants are being challenged and redefined, empowering Indigenous peoples to collect, analyze, interpret and control research data instead of participating in projects as "subjects" (see Tomlins Jahnke and Gillies, 2012).Indigenous ways of knowing, embedded in oral traditions, are informing research design and implementation, as well as the communication of research results, for example, through digital storytelling (Cunsolo-Willox et al., 2012;Wachowich and Scobie, 2010;Marsh, 2009).These shifting orientations and approaches respond to calls by Indigenous advocates and communities for the decolonization of institutions of higher education and research methodologies employed by academics in their work with Indigenous peoples (Mihesuah, 1998;Tuhiwai Smith, 1999;Brown and Strega, 2005;Wilson, 2009;Chilisa, 2012;Battiste, 2013;Strega and Brown, 2015).Business scholars Weir and Wuttunee (2004), alongside their peers in the humanities and social sciences, have observed that the data collection undertaken in Indigenous communities and organizations rarely benefitted Indigenous peoples.Consequently, Hindle and Moroz (2010) asserted (based on Schnarch, 2004) that Indigenous research requires "methodologies […] built upon frameworks grounded within long standing Indigenous knowledge management techniques, ensuring ownership, control, access and possession" (p.376).Indigenous researchers will make an important contribution to the expanding discipline of Indigenous business through expert knowledge in research design and implementation, as well as advocacy (Hindle and Moroz, 2010, pp.376-377).While culturally responsive and sensitive research protocols are needed to advance the study of business, entrepreneurship and management in Indigenous contexts (Kayseas et al., 2008), the value of Indigenous knowledges and perspectives in diverse business contexts is increasingly being recognized (Love and Tilley, 2014, pp.35-36) and may inform new theoretical perspectives and practical approaches.Directly linked to research and practice, international policy bodies have affirmed Indigenous rights to protect and control their own knowledges.The United Nations
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,047 | 0,152 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,015 | 0,021 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,030 | 0,012 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».