MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038340582 · doi:10.1177/1609406920934614

Extending Youth Voices in a Participatory Thematic Analysis Approach

2020· article· en· W3038340582 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Linda Liebenberg, Aliya Jamal, Janice Ikeda

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsThematic analysisParticipatory action researchCitizen journalismConceptualizationPublic relationsFocus groupData collectionSociologyIndigenousPsychologyPolitical scienceQualitative researchSocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent decades have seen a more thoughtful discussion regarding the inclusion of children and youth in research and decision making, challenging how we conduct child and youth-focused studies. Included is a focus on Youth Participatory Action Research approaches and how they facilitate engagement of child and youth voice. Similarly, there is a smaller yet equally important questioning of how we understand “voice,” drawing attention to the conceptualization of “voice,” and the need to account for its social positioning and construction. Despite these various advances, current discussions focus predominantly on research design and data gathering, with an emerging focus on the dissemination of findings. Discussions focused specifically on data analysis remain limited. This omission seems important, given the bridge analysis forms between data gathering and dissemination of findings, and how this impacts youth engagement in the research process overall. By not considering more thoughtfully the ways in which children do or do not engage in the analysis of their data, how are we impacting the positioning of their “voice” in the findings? Similarly, how does our analysis unintentionally strengthen or undermine the platform from which youth share their findings, especially with those in positions of power? In response to these questions, we use this article to consider data analysis in relation to voice and subsequent knowledge production. We also share our approach to participatory thematic analysis in the Spaces & Places research project, a participatory action research program with Indigenous youth in three communities of Atlantic Canada. Through the discussion and exemplar, we hope to contribute to how researchers consider “voice,” ours and those of child and youth collaborators, and the ways in which we can account for both in the analysis process, and enhance the voices of children and youth as knowledge brokers in the dissemination that follows.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.231
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2310.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0130.026
Scholarly communication0.0180.016
Open science0.0050.022
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.776
GPT teacher head0.653
Teacher spread0.123 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations128
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207