Balancing safety and action: Ethical protocols for photovoice research with women who have experienced violence
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.
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 | 0.330 | 0.285 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
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".