The Use of Graphic Facilitation to Support Adherence to OCAP® Principles in Research With Indigenous Communities
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
Graphic facilitation is a creative, robust visual communication process and tool that can be used by researchers for several benefits including improving data integrity; mitigating barriers between researchers and participants; promoting participants’ ownership of data, decision-making, and creativity; and, co-creating knowledge, which is of particular interest among certain cultures and in some contexts. For Indigenous Peoples who traditionally use visual, oral, and narrative modalities as primary forms of communication, graphic facilitation is a methodology that aligns well with these modes of communicating. In this article, we describe our use of graphic facilitation in a community-led project exploring Indigenous parents’ perceptions of community strengths, needs and priorities related to healthy early childhood development and optimal parenting. In collaboration with the Indigenous Friendship Centre in Hamilton, Canada, we held a Community Gathering that was facilitated by a graphic artist experienced in working with the Indigenous community; the findings resulting from the Gathering are presented. We discuss how researchers can use graphic facilitation as a tool to ensure adherence to the OCAP® principles of data ownership, control, access, and possession for the Indigenous community and describe the potential for mitigating power imbalances. Finally, considerations for researchers contemplating using graphic facilitation as a tool for research projects with Indigenous people and communities are presented.
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 | 0.109 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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