Empowerment through participatory action research : a case study of participatory action research with young refugees in Dagahaley Camp, Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is a personal account and analysis of the methodological considerations, choices and activities that I undertook in a research project about out-of-school youths in the Dadaab Refugee Camps of Northeastern Province, Kenya. It chronicles two distinct stages of research in the camps, the first in 2003 which was a blended experience of pilot data collection and advocacy research, and the second in 2004 which was an attempt at a pure model of Participatory Action Research (PAR), as well as the personal, theoretical and practical deliberations that were a preoccupation before, during, between and following these experiences in Dadaab. The aim of this thesis is to contribute to the empirical documentation of implementing PAR as well as its potential for realizing various forms and degrees of empowerment among participants. A review of the literature that espouses and critiques PAR is included as is a review of the literature about research with refugees and in refugee camps, but the primary focus of the thesis is experiential data. Thus, the "Methodology chapter" (Chapter 5) may be thought of as the nucleus of this thesis with the rest of the paper orbiting around it to try to make sense of how the methodology should be approached and how it may have achieved some forms of empowerment. I argue that PAR can provide a social opportunity through which the realms of human agency and freedom may be expanded. For individuals and collectives as disempowered as youths in a long-term refugee camp, the values that direct PAR, which I summarize as authenticity in relationships, hold unique potential for human flourishing. An important lesson from this research experience is that the significance of synchronizing such an opportunity for human flourishing with the imagination and ambition of youth participants should not be underestimated.
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 | 0.016 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".