The Role of Partnerships to Shift Power Asymmetries in Research with Vulnerable Communities: Reflections from an Early Childhood Development Project in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of the world’s children live in low- and middle-income countries, yet the majority of early childhood cognitive research is done with a small proportion of high-income countries. These findings cannot be assumed to apply across all contexts. It is therefore necessary to confront entrenched systems of power and privilege in early childhood cognitive development research as they relate to researchers and vulnerable communities. South Africa (SA) is a previously colonized, Majority World country with a history of white supremacy and racial segregation. Although early cognitive development is a growing field of research in SA, power and privilege in this field of research are yet to be properly considered. Within SA’s unique context, we highlight the valuable role of partnerships in shifting power asymmetries; in our case, between early cognitive development researchers and a community-based organization with a 50-year history of working in vulnerable communities to promote young children’s development. Our work together thus far has largely focused on executive function and numeracy skills (inspired by Minority World country research) in vulnerable SA children. We reflect on the authors’ positionality, the intersectionality of privilege where relevant, and discuss three themes: the assessment of young children’s development in vulnerable SA settings; formation of a more equitable partnership with individuals and communities whose voices are not often heard in this research; and translation and dissemination of research findings. We include recommendations for researchers to help with decolonizing early cognitive development research in order to add value to research from diverse settings.
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 | 0.103 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.062 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.054 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| 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".