Participatory video as radical incrementalism: exploring the right to love among adults with developmental disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research project involved working collaboratively with a disability advocacy group on an action research project aimed at exploring participatory video as a form of radical incrementalism through three interrelated areas: method, voice, and advocacy. The research involved 12 participants (co-filmmakers) co-creating a series of films about the dimensions of sexual rights as experienced and understood by people with developmental disabilities. The participants subsequently uploaded their videos onto digital platforms, and took on the roles of community educators and incorporated their videos into their larger advocacy campaign. The impact of the research process was documented with multiple data that were analyzed using an approach that drew on critical disability theory and Freirean pedagogy. Through this collaborative method evolved seven stages of production that integrated distribution as core phase of the research process. Findings suggested that a complex interplay between barriers and supports play a critical role in sexual rights, sexual health, and healthy sexuality. In the area of self-advocacy, themes suggested that the process also contributed to: a) disability pride, b) building community bridges, and c) collaborative social action. These findings were critically examined with respect to participatory video as a form of radical incrementalism. Findings suggested that the integration of distribution afforded a more comprehensive understanding of potential strengths, tensions, and ethical considerations of multi-media technologies in advocacy efforts in the context of community development and adult learning practices. Further, it provided insight into the dimensions of disability and sexual rights from the perspective of persons with developmental disabilities living in Western Canada. Suggestions for future research include attention to the authorship/ownership issues in participatory video projects, and exploring meaningful ways of addressing potential tensions of distribution in research contexts.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".