Participatory action research: An exploration from a Freirean perspective of research involving people with dementia
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.
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 | 0.086 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".