From Participatory Research to the Co-construction of Actions – Reflections on how to Reinforce Action Research for Social Inclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important part of the action research literature focuses on the participatory dimension of the research process and is much less explicit on the connection of research and action or on how researchers contribute to tangible transformations, in particular outside organizational or education settings. Drawing from seven years of experience as an action researcher within an anti-poverty organization dedicated to improving living conditions in a low-income neighborhood in Montreal (Canada), this article seeks to enhance our comprehension of how action researchers can more effectively contribute to transformational action. Our study identifies four primary functions of research within the examined model and underscores three core characteristics to strengthen the integration of knowledge production and action. These characteristics encompass expanding the role of researchers to actively participate in both the co-development and implementation of action; engaging in long-term commitments and partnerships in a given setting, preferably being even a researcher based in the setting; and fostering collaborations with universities. By elucidating these key elements, this article intends to offer insights into improving the impact of action research, ultimately advancing our ability to contribute to transformative change for more inclusive and sustainable societies.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
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 | 0.172 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.162 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".