Navigating community-engaged scholarship within neoliberal academic institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall purpose of this research was to identify systemic conditions within academia that are preventing researchers from engaging in CES, and ultimately, influence change in university policies and procedures pertaining to community-based research. Using interpretive phenomenological inquiry, four community-engaged social work scholars were interviewed about their experience with participating in community-engaged research. The interviews explored the experiences of community-engaged scholarships within the current academic context, and how their work is valued, recognized and rewarded by their academic institution. It was found that the participants had a common understanding that community-engaged scholarship and its research outcomes remain largely undervalued by the majority of academia. The participants provided many of their own personal experiences while also pointing out restrictive policies and practices at their university. The implications of these trends are discussed and entry points for change in the academy are highlighted.
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 | 0.043 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.048 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".