MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1560969898 · doi:10.56105/cjsae.v21i2.1077

We’re here, you just don’t know how to reach us: A reflexive examination of research with citizens on the socio-economic margins

2009· article· en· W1560969898 on OpenAlexaffvenue
M. Tanya Brann-Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivitySociologyGender studiesPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research that aims to trouble social, cultural, and economic disparities is usually conducted with the best of socially just intentions. Still, embedded in all research processes is the potential to disrupt and, simultaneously, reproduce mechanisms of power that enable inequalities. Hence, as Bourdieu (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) insists, such efforts require reflexive examination that involves an interrogation of practices and regulations guiding research. Drawing upon my own reflexive inquiry, I address in this article some of the methodological challenges that surfaced when I conducted ethnographic doctoral research with socially and economically disadvantaged young adults. I discuss participant recruitment, retention concerns, and ways to support participants’ involvement in research. I aim to expose assumptions in research practices that may have inadvertently reproduced some of the inequalities that this research attempted to disturb and to suggest ways to address these challenges. Résumé La recherche qui aborde les disparités sociales, culturelles, et économiques est généralement effectuée avec les meilleures intentions socialement juste. Pourtant, intégrée dans tous les processus de recherche est le potentiel de perturber et, simultanément, de reproduire les mécanismes du pouvoir qui permettent aux inégalités. Ainsi, comme Bourdieu (Bourdieu et Wacquant, 1992) insiste, de tels efforts nécessitent un examen des pratiques et des règles régissant la recherche. Je m’adresse dans cet article les défis méthodologiques qui ont surgi lorsque j’ai effectué des recherches ethnographiques de doctorat avec des jeunes adultes qui sont socialement et économiquement défavorisés. Je discute le recrutement des participants, la rétention des préoccupations, et les moyens d’aider les participants à rester impliqués dans la recherche. Je vise à exposer des suppositions dans les pratiques de recherche qui peut reproduit les inégalités que cette recherche a tenté déranger et suggérer des moyens d’aborder ces défis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.113
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1130.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0300.119
Scholarly communication0.0250.028
Open science0.0040.018
Research integrity0.0080.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.481
GPT teacher head0.593
Teacher spread0.113 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal for the Study of Adult EducationSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207