Listening to the Margins: Reflecting on Lessons Learned From a National Conference Focused on Establishing a Qualitative Research Platform for Childhood Disability and Race
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The late Black feminist scholar, bell hooks, suggested that the margin can be a place of radical possibility, where marginalized people nourish their capacity for collective resistance. On the margin, it is possible to generate a counter-language. In this paper, we chronicle, describe and reflect upon how bell hooks' ideas inspired the creation of a national 2-day conference titled, ‘Listening to the Margins’. This conference was focused on understanding the intersectional experiences of childhood disability and race with a view to better supporting racialized disabled children, youth, and their families. This conference was needed because intersectional experiences of childhood disability and race have been silenced in childhood disability studies, critical race studies, and various other resistance-oriented systems of thought. Racialized children with disabilities and their families are often unsupported as they navigate Euro-centric healthcare systems. Reflecting on lessons learned from our conference, we suggest several strategies for advancing meaningful research programs with racialized disabled children. Strategies include centering the art of listening, amplifying the margin, engaging the arts to promote empathy, embracing psychosocial support in work on ableism and racism, developing clinical tools and practices that are grounded in lived patient experiences, and advancing decolonizing research that recognizes the role research has historically played in perpetuating colonial violence. In totality, this article unpacks how sitting on the margins, as bell hooks suggested, has allowed us to occupy a place of discomfort and creativity necessary to disrupt dominant discourses. In so doing, we have made space for the hidden narratives of racialized disabled children and their families.
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 | 0.106 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".