Braiding Designs for Decolonizing Research Methodologies: Theory, Practice, Ethics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Describing methodological design in decolonizing research as the intersection of theory, practice, and ethics, we share four focused micro-stories from our respective research projects. The metaphor of braiding represents the methodological design process within each of our research stories, significantly influenced by Dwayne Donald’s (2012) Indigenous métissage. Heather grapples with notions of reciprocity, Brooke considers the role of place in the construction of teacher identity, Marc engages with reworking photovoice, and Julia brings relationships with plants into her methodological design. Intentionally interrupting each other and ourselves, we feature the moments and movements of research design that are iterative, recursive, messy, and sometimes stuck, in contrast to the linear, untainted and dogmatic methodologies that assert themselves around us. Meanings and relationships may be produced in braiding our micro-stories together, exceeding what might be possible if they were presented separately. Readers may be invited into imagining the design of decolonizing methodologies beyond those we enacted.
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 | 0.269 | 0.259 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.103 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".