Navigating Ethical Tensions Through Critical Reflexivity: A Participatory Filmmaking Research Project With Children With Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper illustrates the importance of critical reflexivity in guiding socially and ethically responsible participatory research through an analysis of reflexive notes pertaining to the process of a participatory filmmaking research project with children with disabilities. Within this process, numerous ethical tensions emerged in the field regarding the participation of children with disabilities, authenticity of stories shared, navigating facilitator’s voice, issues of representation of child co-researchers, safety and risks associated with sharing everyday realities within the film, and limits to immediate action. The practice of individual and shared critical reflexivity among researchers, and inclusivity of child co-researchers, was central in navigating ethical tensions. This paper makes transparent the process of critical reflexivity within a participatory action research project by highlighting the ethical tensions faced, contextualizing them within cultural practices and power relations, and sharing strategies used to address ‘ethics in practice.’ We end by proposing practical strategies to enhance reflexive research practices in participatory 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
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
| grok | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
| opus | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | 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 | 0.038 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
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".