Sport for development and peace: a call for transnational, multi-sited, postcolonial feminist research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I reflect upon and discuss findings from an empirical study that employed a postcolonial feminist approach to a multi-sited global ethnography of a sport for development and peace (SDP) initiative. Building on postcolonial feminist perspectives pertaining the importance of creating cross-border feminist solidarities anchored in struggles in the specificities of ‘the local’, in combination with recent work on research on transnational global activist research that explores issues of NGOization, I investigate two key methodological challenges and tensions that emerged in my research, including: (1) the politics and perils of translation in cross-cultural research; and (2) the technologies of aid evaluation and ethics of representation. I conclude by critically considering struggles of power, knowledge and social relations in local and transnational SDP, and discuss possibilities for mutual accountability and ethical responsibility in future SDP research, policy and practice.
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 | 0.048 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".