Reflections on change theory and community-based participatory action research: Congruent, similar or different?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While change is acknowledged as integral to all action research, literature linking the theories of change theoretically merits exploration. Are some theories of change more congruent to principles of action research than others? Does congruence depend on which type of action research and which change theory are being compared? During the implementation of a four-cycle community-based participatory action research (CBPR) project in nursing education in Ghana, such questions arose. This paper is an attempt to grapple with those questions. While Kotter’s eight-step theory of organizational change was chosen to guide this study, it became obvious that various elements of change theories were integrated in the study as it progressed. For Kotter’s organizational change theory to serve as an effective guide for the implementation cycles in the CBPR project, it must be conducted through the lens of critical social theory and a perspective on social and cultural change.
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 | 0.190 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.203 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.061 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.068 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".