A realist-constructionist perspective on participatory research in health promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clarifying the contours of research in health promotion (HP) is an ongoing challenge. Research in this action-oriented field has traditionally been developed based on values such as participation and empowerment. Consequently, many forms of participatory research have emerged throughout the years, and participatory research has positioned itself as a core competency of HP and public health. This paper argues that participation as a normative stance guiding methodology, or as value, is a fragile posture upon which to position research practices. The argument is based on a realist-constructionist perspective of science and specifically uses Law and Latour's notion of inscription device and Callon's actor-network theory to suggest that participation is an epistemological necessity and that participatory research practices may be considered as inscription devices. These theoretical notions help clarify the consequences of participation on knowledge production. Finally, the article refers to Stengers's work to propose an ecology of research practices that defines obligations and exigencies for HP with respect to knowledge production and that are more consistent with the field's values of social justice and equity.
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 | 0.090 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.138 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".