Conference is Ceremony: The Centrality of Process in Community-Based Participatory Research in Music Education With Indigenous Partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we highlight the centrality of process in Indigenist community-based participatory research in music education to offer new methodological insights, using a recent investigation that employed conference as research method as a case study. From our perspective as university researchers who are non-Indigenous or Indigenous but not to the land now known as Canada, we describe in detail the process of co-creating a conference grounded in local First Nations Protocols as a research method for our most recent study with Indigenous partners, also showing how the process is related to ceremony. This knowledge creation and sharing conference involved more than 200 Knowledge Keepers, School District Indigenous leaders, and music educators in British Columbia endeavouring to effectively embed Indigenous knowledge in K-12 music classes. We highlight ways we found to be relationally accountable, including providing adequate time to arrive at consensus in all decisions; developing and maintaining trust throughout pandemic lockdowns and restrictions; and locating additional sources of funding to facilitate all Protocols, which led Indigenous participants to report feeling that the conference was a culturally safe place and non-Indigenous participants to report that they found it to be a culturally immersive experience. We became more aware that the very process of discussion and decision making that took place at the many committee and subcommittee meetings leading up to the conference was part and parcel of the ceremonial aspect of this research. Indigenous participants deemed the outcomes and effects of the research/conference credible and trustworthy because they emerged from a planning process that was culturally informed and that had been deemed ethical, legitimate, and appropriate by all planning parties through consensus.
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 | 0.183 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.106 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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; 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".