Challenges in the Pursuit of an Indigenous Psychology: A Self-Reflection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a variety of challenges faced by the author in studying and promoting indigenous psychologies of the Indian intellectual and cultural traditions. It narrates specific instances which tried to present a variety of obstacles that discouraged the author from his pursuit. For example, when a colleague stated that indigenous psychology is nonsense insofar as science is universal, and like physics, it does not admit regional variations; teachers or colleagues expressed extreme dejection about research on Yoga; he was advised against studying Indian psychology as it would ruin career prospects; his articles or book manuscripts were routinely rejected, and so on. In a specific situation, when a young colleague was hounded out of the department for his association with a school of theology, an example was set indicating that the religious association of Yoga would be dangerous. An autobiographical account is chosen over a survey or abstract analysis since academic pursuit must be sustained despite specific sorts of personal experiences that tend to undermine study and pursuit of indigenous psychologies. On the other hand, support offered by opposite types of experiences and by encouragement by mentors is also described.
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 | 0.028 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".