Balancing safety and action: Ethical protocols for photovoice research with women who have experienced violence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: The purpose of this paper is to describe and reflect on an ethics and safety protocol to conduct Photovoice research with women who have experienced intimate partner violence. Methods: Guided by feminist participatory action research principles, we collaboratively developed the Protocol as a way to navigate the tensions among three imperative aspects of our study: (a) maintaining the confidentiality and safety of participants, (b) using the data for action and knowledge exchange activities, and (c) working to destabilize traditional power relations between researchers and participants, thus enhancing community control. Outcomes: The Protocol was framed by the primary guideline that all decisions be made through a lens of safety and autonomy, which shaped the ways in which informed consent, confidentiality, and safety were managed during all phases of the research process. Conclusions: Our Protocol provides an example of how ethical and safety tensions associated with conducting Photovoice and other action-oriented methods with members of marginalized populations can be addressed.
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.
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 | 0.022 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it