Participatory action research: An exploration from a Freirean perspective of research involving people with dementia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Researchers are increasingly being called upon to involve people with dementia in research that pertains to them. Participatory Action Research (PAR) has been one of the approaches that has been utilized to do this. How people understand and apply the ideas behind this approach however has often been atheoretical and diverse. This has implications for how purpose, power, voice and agency are conceived and actualized. OBJECTIVES: This paper will examine how theoretical construction of PAR can inform the process of meaningfully involving people living with dementia in research. Specifically, drawing on the work of Paulo Freire, this paper will articulate a way of conceptualizing PAR that is explicitly critical and then demonstrate how these ideas informed a PAR study focused on addressing stigma and discrimination with people living with dementia. CONCLUSION: The purpose of the paper is to engage researchers and people with lived expertise in critical reflection of what it actually means to involve people with dementia in research.
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.
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 | 0.021 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it