Shared Participatory Research Principles and Methodologies: Perspectives from the USA and Brazil—45 Years after Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The trajectory of participation in health research by community social actors worldwide has been built on a history of community participation from the Ottawa Charter Health Promotion call for community mobilization, to the emancipatory educational philosophy of Paulo Freire, to social movements and organizing for health and social justice. This paper builds on this history to expand our global knowledge about community participation in research through a dialogue between experiences and contexts in two prominent countries in this approach; the United States and Brazil. We first focus on differences in political and scientific contexts, financing, and academic perspectives and then present how, despite these differences, similarities exist in values and collaborative methodologies aimed at engaging community partners in democratizing science and knowledge construction. We present three case studies, one from the U.S. and two from Brazil, which illustrate similar multi-level processes using participatory research tools and Freirian dialogue to contribute to social mobilization, community empowerment, and the transformation of inequitable societal conditions. Despite different processes of evolution, we observed a convergence of participatory health research strategies and values that can transform science in our commitment to reduce health and social inequities and improve community wellbeing.
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 | 0.085 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| 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 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".