Arts-based research methods with indigenous peoples: an international scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research with indigenous peoples worldwide carries long histories of exploitation, distorted representation, and theft. New “indigenizing” methodologies centre the production of knowledge around the processes and knowledges of indigenous communities. Creative research methods involving artistic practices—such as photovoice, journaling, digital storytelling, dance, and theatre—may have a place within these new approaches, but their applications have yet to be systematically explored. We conducted a scoping review of 36 international research studies literature on arts-based research with indigenous peoples. The majority of studies used photovoice and were conducted in Canada, USA, Australia, or New Zealand. We identify five primary fields in which arts-based methods may offer benefit to an indigenous research agenda: (a) participant engagement, (b) relationship building, (c) indigenous knowledge creation, (d) capacity building, and (e) community action. We propose several opportunities to further explore arts-based methods with indigenous peoples.
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 | 0.054 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".