Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brown, Leslie and Susan Strega (Eds). Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive Approaches. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 2005. 303 pages. ISBN -13-978-1551302751. Paper $39.95. With the publication of Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive Approaches, Leslie Brown, Susan Strega, and contributors have provided a valuable resource and point of reference for academics and practitioners who are operating from, by, and within ihe margins. Beyond contextualizing the discriminatory nature of dominant epistemologies and ontologies of traditional research, the critical framework adopted within this collected works further critiques the methodological privileging of objectivity, neutrality, the application of reason, and the adoption of quantitative methods. From an Indigenous standpoint, this publication serves as a stimulating extension to Linda Tuhiwai Smith's Decolonizing Methodologies.^ In her text, Smith challenges Indigenous scholars to 'research back,' demystify, and decolonize the inextricably imperial and colonial nature of scientific research. Building upon the work of Smith and other notable Indigenous scholars, Research as Resistance incorporates the works of those who are not only negotiating from positions of Indigenous marginality but also those who sit on their own respective 'borders of otherness.' By including a diverse collection of critical, Indigenous, and antioppressive approaches, Brown and Strega successfully reveal the breadth and possibility of innovative research methods and methodologies that can be shared between those who occupy discrete positions of marginality. Through their respective discussions on anti-oppressive approaches, Moosa-Mitha, Strega, and Potts and Brown bring theoretical continuity to this compilation of collected works. All three discussions critique the hegemonic nature of dominant ontological and epistemological norms. Indigenous contributors urge that culturally relevant research methods be infused within academic scholarship. Kovach encourages Indigenous scholars to ensure that dreams are legitimized as important sources of knowledge; Absolon and Willet suggest a provoking means of locating oneself in Aboriginal research and propose that we put ourselves forward by re-vising, re-claiming, re-naming, remembering, re-connecting, re-covering, and re-searching; and QzuFsig'yah'maht-Thomas shares an inspiring reflection on the teachings of her grandmother and urges Indigenous scholars to honour the power of storytellers by positioning storytelling as a resistance methodology. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.060 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.158 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".