A scoping review: The utility of participatory research approaches in psychology
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consistent with community psychology's focus on addressing societal problems by accurately and comprehensively capturing individuals' relationships in broader contexts, participatory research approaches aim to incorporate individuals' voices and knowledge into understanding, and responding to challenges and opportunities facing them and their communities. Although investigators in psychology have engaged in participatory research, overall, these approaches have been underutilized. The purpose of this review was to examine areas of research focus that have included participatory research methods and, in turn, highlight the strengths and ways that such methods could be better used by researchers. Nearly 750 articles about research with Indigenous Peoples, children/adolescents, forensic populations, people with HIV/AIDS, older adults, and in the area of industrial-organizational psychology were coded for their use of participatory research principles across all research stages (i.e., research design, participant recruitment and data collection, analysis and interpretation of results, and dissemination). Although we found few examples of studies that were fully committed to participatory approaches to research, and notable challenges with applying and reporting on this type of work, many investigators have developed creative ways to engage respectfully and reciprocally with participants. Based on our findings, recommendations and suggestions for researchers are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it