Moving from research ON, to research WITH and FOR Indigenous communities: A critical reflection on community‐based participatory research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research projects conducted on Indigenous communities have largely been developed within a dominant Western research paradigm that values the researcher as knowledge holder and the community members as passive subjects. The consequences of such research have been marginalizing for Indigenous people globally, leading to calls for the decolonization of research through the development of Indigenous research paradigms. Based on a reflexive analysis of a five‐year partnership focused on developing capacity for tourism development in Lake Helen First Nation (Red Rock Indian Band), we offer a way of understanding the connection between Indigenous research paradigms and the western construct of community‐based participatory research as a philosophical and methodological approach to geography. Our analysis shows that researchers should continue to move away from methods that perpetuate the traditional ways of working ON Indigenous communities to methods that allow us to work WITH and FOR them, based on an ethic that respects and values the community as a full partner in the co‐creation of the research question and process, and shares in the acquisition, analysis, and dissemination of knowledge. Our reflection also shows that when research is conducted on a community, the main beneficiary is the researcher, when conducted with, both parties receive benefit, while research for the community may result in benefits mainly for the community. We further contend that any research conducted within a community, regardless of its purpose and methodology, should follow the general principles of Indigenous paradigms, and respect the community by engaging in active communication with them, seeking their permission not only to conduct and publish the research but also with respect to giving results of the research back in ways that adhere to community protocols and practices.
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 | 0.198 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.152 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.044 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".