Aboriginal Participatory Action Research: An Indigenous Research Methodology Strengthening Decolonisation and Social and Emotional Wellbeing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Focusing on key Indigenous wellbeing paradigms, discourses, and disciplines this discussion paper presents a distinctive Aboriginal Participatory Action Research (APAR) approach as a transformative Indigenous Research Methodology. It also explores Indigenous Standpoint Theory, Indigenous Knowledge Systems, Indigenous Research Methods and Methodologies as key elements in decolonising research, building self-determination in communities, and contributing to Indigenous social and emotional wellbeing (SEWB) and Indigenous Psychology. Drawing on three community projects — the Kimberley Empowerment, Healing and Leadership Program, the National Empowerment Project and the Cultural, Social and Emotional Wellbeing Program — this paper demonstrates how APAR contributes to Indigenous SEWB and Indigenous Psychology. Finally, it examines the interrelationship of core components of APAR articulating an Indigenous epistemology, ontology, axiology (Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing) and methodology covering Indigenous specific methods, guiding principles, research protocols and ethical guidelines.
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 | 0.067 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".