The Political Economy of Peer Research: Mapping the Possibilities and Precarities of Paying People for Lived Experience
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
Abstract Participatory research, or the practice of involving ‘peers’ with lived experience, has become popular in social work. Peer engagement is lauded for: ‘democratising’ the research process; providing ‘capacity building’ and facilitating opportunities to co-produce knowledge. Yet, these claims are rarely evaluated by empirical investigations into the socio-material work conditions of peer researchers. Here we present findings of a study that examined the experiences of peer researchers, focusing on payment inequities and social workers’ roles in advocating for economic justice. Together with peer research assistants, we conducted a participatory constructivist grounded theory study, interviewing peers (total n = 34) who were compensated to work on studies focused on the following: racialised communities, communities of people who use drugs, consumer/psychiatric survivor/ex-patient and mad communities and trans/non-binary communities. Our findings highlight divergent compensation practices in peer research work. Whilst some peers were satisfied with their treatment on research teams and payment received, others discussed challenges associated with precarious short-term casual work and managing formal income alongside state social assistance such as disability support. We conclude that in some cases, the peer role is characterised by precarious working conditions which compound rather than challenge injustice within the research enterprise, and we discuss implications for social work.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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