In choppy waters with a critical friend: the benefits of intimate reflexive encounters in participatory action research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explore the benefits of intimate reflexive encounters with a ‘critical friend’ in the context of a Participatory Action Research (PAR) project. We conceptualize these encounters as an evolving relationship between a kayaker who supports the swim (research) and the swimmer (researcher). Methodologically, we adopt a form of co-constructed autoethnography and contribute to ongoing collective approaches to reflexivity and explorations in co-writing. We demonstrate how through asking clarifying questions, probing assumptions, listening to, and validating emotions, and orienting towards solutions, a ‘critical friend’ can support the researcher in engaging in reflexive sensemaking. Overall, these intimate encounters reveal assumptions, anxieties, challenges, limitations, and a range of emotions involved in conducting PAR. The kayaker and swimmer harness the power of peer support and create spaces of collegiality to resist the growing individualization and ever-increasing pressures of academic work.
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 | 0.081 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".