‘Stepping back’ as researchers: How are we addressing ethics in arts-based approaches to working with war-affected children in school and community settings.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a need for an ethically responsible means of conducting arts-based research with \nchildren affected by global adversity, including children affected by war. The multiple effects of \nwar on children remains a global issue. While there are many approaches to working with waraffected \nchildren, participatory arts-based methods such as photovoice, drama, and drawing \nare being increasingly relied upon. However, what are the ethical issues and how are \nresearchers and practitioners taking up these issues in school, community, and “on the street” \nsettings? By reviewing the literature on ethical issues that may arise when working with \nchildren through arts-based methods, this article identifies four critical ethical issues that \nrepresent specific challenges in relation to children affected by war: (1) informed consent; (2) \ntruth, interpretation, and representation; (3) dangerous emotional terrain; and (4) aesthetics. \nThe article highlights current gaps in the research and poses several unanswered questions in \narts-based research with war-affected children.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".