"You Need To Let Go of Control”: Critical Reflections of a Participatory Action Research Doctoral Project with Muslim Women in Britain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the ethical and practical complexities of conducting participatory action research (PAR) as a doctoral student and shares findings from a doctoral study co-developed with Muslim women living in Britain to promote social change. Through the development of a visual methods (Photovoice) project, 16 Muslim women collaborated to document new understandings of what Muslim womanhood, religious agency, and empowerment mean to them, within the broader context of gendered Islamophobia. The findings reveal the complexities of establishing an equal partnership, and negotiating power dynamics, trust, ownership, and group conflict in PAR, which problematises assumptions around community empowerment within participatory approaches. The article concludes with critical reflections captured during the project, which advances understandings of how diverse Muslim women respond to PAR within the British context.
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 | 0.043 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".