Navigating ethical terrains: perspectives on "research ethics" in Kakuma refugee camp
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A dearth of scholarship has examined the phenomenon of research ethics from the perspectives of young people living in refugee camps.The following three-manuscript dissertation explores how refugee young people, living in Kakuma refugee camp (Kenya), comprehend and make sense of participating in research.By examining theoretical constructions of research ethics with refugee young people, who have previously participated in research, this dissertation inquires how research participants report the impact and effects of participating as researched subjects.Via a critical ethnographic methodology, including qualitative interview methods, 31 refugee young people explored the underpinnings of "ethical research" in Kakuma refugee camp.The participants were positioned as the experts of research ethics in Kakuma refugee camp.Data indicate that multiple contradictions and discrepancies exist between the values of research ethics for (a) refugee young people in Kakuma refugee camp and (b) the foundations of ethical research scholarship/protocols.For instance, participants reported that researchers did not necessarily provide "benefits" or "respect" during their previous research experiences.Given the disparities in the constructions of research ethics, multiple theoretical prisms were utilized throughout the three manuscripts: postcolonialism approaches, anti-oppression research, self-reflexivity, power, and decolonizing practices.By situating refugee young people as experts in research ethics, this dissertation also presents participant-centered research recommendations for future researchers.These include providing feedback to participants, exercising direct and transparent communication, following up with research recommendations, and reflecting on one's research and personal objectives in Kakuma.Findings of this research reaffirm the responsibility of social work researchers, practitioners, and educators to explore "ethics" when engaging with communities that experience displacement, marginalization, and oppression.support, energy, love, and guidance that framed this wild and majestic process currently feels unfeasible.While I'm indubitably left with a plethora of existential and practical queries related to this project, one aspect feels clear: this experience was one of the most existentially profound and riveting that I've been privileged enough to embrace.How could I possibly not commence with the backbone of my doctoral studies: Myriam Denov?! Myriam's gracious and overwhelmingly supportive mentorship and guidance only amplified throughout my process.Thanks to Myriam's leadership, critique, personality, and encouragement, I have irrefutably advanced my academic writing, critique, nuance, point of reference, interest, and position as a social worker and social work researcher.Throughout my journey, Myriam's consistent desire for me to explore: "How will this work impact social work practice, theory, education, and research?"will incessantly guide me well after my training at McGill.Without Myriam, my academic trajectory would clearly look different.I also am particularly grateful to my two doctoral committee members-Sara Kahn and Steven High.Both scholars were monumental in sharing their expertise and encouragement in a critical, yet very thoughtful and supportive manner.Shari Brotman was also influential and supportive with my
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 | 0,088 | 0,047 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,044 | 0,112 |
| Communication savante | 0,027 | 0,023 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,018 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,011 | 0,018 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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 ».