MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588492348 · doi:10.13140/rg.2.1.4645.8082/1

A Social Network Perspective on Ownership and Self-Determination in Participatory Research

2015· article· en· W2588492348 on OpenAlex
Jon Salsberg

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchLawson FoundationQueen's UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Social network analysisBusinessSocial network (sociolinguistics)Social capitalComputer scienceSociologyArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Participatory research (PR) is the co-creation of new knowledge by researchers working in equitable partnerships with those affected by the issue under study or those who will benefit from or ultimately act on its results.A core driver of PR is the self-determination of stakeholders who intend to improve their lives, health or practice through active involvement in creating the evidence they need for action.In order to foster selfdetermination, PR utilises strategies intended to create community ownership over the research process, particularly when the research idea originates from outside the community.However, little is understood about the range of strategies employed or how community stakeholders perceive their utility in fostering ownership.This dissertation asks the question, what processes and strategies foster engagement within a participatory project, and how have these contributed to community ownership and self-determination over the research process?First, a systematic review was undertaken to synthesise best-practice participatory engagement strategies as employed by leading PR practitioners (manuscript 1).Then using social network techniques, we examined an active community-based participatory research project to ask, how do influence and decisionmaking evolve over the course of a participatory project as the project is developed and matures (manuscript 2)?A further set of network measures was applied in a longitudinal analysis to reveal changes in network structure, significance of change in actor roles, and demonstrate sustainability of change in ownership once the original non-community champion stepped aside (manuscript 3).Finally, through a qualitative case study using the participants from the same study, we explored what strategies were employed within the partnership to assure ownership and control by the community partners; and from the point of view of these participants, how responsible were these strategies for fostering the change in influence observed in the network analysis (manuscript 4)? Results show the dynamics of how community ownership emerged over the course of the PR project, and how stakeholders perceived engagement strategies to have fostered this change.Findings have implications for building community ownership and self-determination, while at the same time advancing methodological understanding of social network analysis for studying community partnerships.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.274
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.140 · 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