MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508917462

Indigenous Peoples, Research and Ethics

2016· article· en· W2508917462 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maggie Walter

Bibliographic record

VenueeCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousResearch ethicsAotearoaCultural safetyRealmPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsSociologyPoliticsEngineering ethicsCriminologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A heavy over-representation of Indigenous people within criminal justice andstate welfare systems is a co1runon factor of first-world colonized nation-states. InAustralia, Aotearoa New Zealand, the US and Canada this over-representation positionsIndigenous peoples as a group of key interest for criminological researchersand there is a significant body of criminological literature documenting this positioningin each country. This over-representation also positions Indigenous peoplesas a disproportionately vulnerable group and highlights the criticality of ensuringthat the conduct of research with Indigenous peoples meets high ethical standards.Conducting ethical research with, or about, Indigenous peoples, however requiresmuch more than standard ethical approval from university or other institutional ethicscommittees. Research with Indigenous peoples, particularly the ethical aspects of this research,is not neutral territory. Not only are there unique ethical principles, guidelines andneeds associated with such research, the realm is also awash with racial, cultural,social and political assumptions. The signing of a consent form, for example, takenas evidence of a participant's voluntary informed participation in the research, mayneither be culturally applicable nor meaningful for Indigenous participants. Thecomplex realm of ethical Indigenous research practice in settler states, therefore, hasto be examined from both ends of the research spectrum. The ethical principles andperspectives that the Indigenous subjects of research have articulated and the ethicaldimensions of worldviews and values that researchers themselves bring to theirresearch alongside the compatibility of these with Indigenous research ethics arecentral concerns of ethical research practice with Indigenous peoples. The chapter begins with an overview of the shared positionality of Indigenouspeoples on the hierarchy of socio-economic and cultural disadvantage and withincriminal justice systems in their respective first-world colonized nation-states:Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, the US and Canada. The chapter then detailsIndigenous ethical perspectives, as they are conceived formally and informally, andtheir ramifications for criminology researchers in the practice of ethical research.For Indigenous peoples, ethical research is research that recognizes and respectsIndigenous cultural values, norms, knowledges and sovereign rights. To this encl mostof our example first-world settler states have developed sets of ethical guidelines toinform researchers designing and conducting culturally appropriate and collaborativeresearch. A cross-national comparative analysis of these demonstrates both the essentialsimilarities across cultures and nation-states as well as national variations. The chapter then addresses the ethical impact of the cultural, social and racialmilieu of the researcher: the researcher's worldview. Even if the researcher is fullycognizant of Indigenous ethical dimensions, the outc01ne is not necessarily ethicalresearch. If they do not understand their own social position and how this framestheir research practice then a significant potential to do research harm remains.Researchers' worldview, and the value and belief systems that flow from this, shapeand influence the research questions they regard as important, the way data aregathered, from whom, and, often most critically, the interpretation of those data.Criminological research is not purely a scholarly endeavor and those interpretationshave social and public policy resonance. Far removed from researchers themselves,research findings have real life effects on Indigenous peoples and communities. AnAustralian research example is used to demonstrate such ethical issues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.142
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1420.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0140.047
Scholarly communication0.0140.008
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0100.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania)Same topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207