Finding the ‘action’ in feminist participatory action research
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
Although feminist researchers have increasingly called for participatory and action-oriented research, there have been few analyses of the diverse actions that can occur. We theorized the actions considered and implemented in a feminist participatory action research project (FPAR). For three years we collaborated intensively with a group of diverse women on low income who were involved in a FPAR project designed to reduce social isolation and other self-identified health problems. Our data set included tape recordings of 32 one-on-one interviews, 15 research meetings, and extensive fieldnotes. Our findings indicated that actions occurred on both individual and collective levels; some had been enacted prior to the project and were shared to promote ongoing or new actions, while others arose as a consequence of the women’s involvement in the project. Additionally, some actions were implemented and actualized while others, though discussed at length, remained hopes for the future. While the research participants reported the benefits of being involved in such projects, they also spoke of the potential risks. Our findings revealed the complexities of taking action in FPAR and highlight important considerations for others wishing to engage in this type of research.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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