Critical ethnographic research of literacy practices used in youth community-based organisations in Québec : what ethical concerns?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
General ethical principles such as informed consent, confidentiality, participants’ physical or psychological well-being and the absence of preventable harm should be respected in any research project. However, those guidelines cannot help researchers in specific situations, when they face a difficult situation in the fieldsite: this is what is called an ‘ethical dilemma’ (Goodwin, et al., 2003) or ‘everyday ethics’ (Guillemin & Heggen, 2009). However, what are the ethical implications of doing qualitative research with vulnerable groups of people considering that they are “potentially vulnerable on a variety of levels, because of their marginalized social, political and economic position.” (Laverick, 2010, p.76)? Moreover, the voices of vulnerable or marginalized groups are generally not heard in society and often they have little power in the research process (Pyett, 2002). In this presentation, I will discuss my own experience as a young researcher doing a critical ethnographic study in two organisations working with young people with low levels of formal education in Québec (Canada). At each site, I conducted regular observations over a period of two months, focusing on group activities. During that period, I experienced various ethical dilemmas that challenged my role and position towards the participants. In my talk, I will expose some of the ethical dilemmas encountered in the two fieldsites. I will explain how I dealt with them and what their implications for my study are.
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 | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".