Complex Accountabilities: Deconstructing “the Community” and Engaging Indigenous Feminist Research Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars have focused significant attention on the need for relational conceptions of “accountability” as alternatives to Western modes of knowledge production. This article suggests that conceptualizing accountability through the normative frame of the “community” can narrow the breadth of possible ways of realizing ethical and accountable research relationships and that critical analytical strategies to help ensure researcher accountability to diverse perspectives and experiences within Indigenous communities also demand our attention. The need for research to be driven by and for Indigenous communities has been emphasized, yet within colonial heteropatriarchy, deference to collective units has historically functioned to homogenize and/or erase the knowledge and experience of Indigenous women, girls, and GLBTQ2 peoples. Researchers and academics have the potential to either challenge or reproduce these tendencies in our own works; thus, a decolonial research and activist agenda must be informed by a commitment to address patriarchal and heteronormative structures both internal and external to Indigenous communities. To this end, I propose a turn to Indigenous feminist methodologies as a means of informing broader notions of responsibility and accountability.
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 | 0.094 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.104 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".