The role of participatory action research (PAR) in the emergence of self-determined Indigenous research responding to major societal issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent decades, there has been growing criticism that research has long been conducted ‘on’ Indigenous peoples rather than ‘with’ or ‘for’ them. In response to this, in 1999, Linda Tuhiwai Smith published a critical analysis of colonialism in Western research, arguing for the decolonisation of knowledge and the implementation of new co-constructed projects that respond to societal concerns, rely on methodologies rooted in local knowledge, and use participatory action research approaches. In a seven-year project (2010–17) in Nunavut, Canada, we adopted this approach, using participatory action research to co-construct research questions in collaboration with the Inuit community of Baker Lake (Qamani’tuaq) on issues that most concern them, such as mining impacts and youth future. This article discusses the TUKTU project, analysing its development and the advantages and limitations of Indigenous participatory action research, conceived and conducted by the people it concerns, and based on their vision of the world, valorising their knowledge and contributing to their empowerment.
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 | 0.413 | 0.188 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.117 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".