Researcher Perspectives of Power and Empowerment in Indigenous Community-Based Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-based research (CBR), a methodology which aims to shift power dynamics and empower research participants for social justice ends, has gained significant credibility and popularity in recent decades for research involving Indigenous peoples and communities. However, the concepts of power and empowerment are not well-explained in existing CBR literature, with limited description of what power hierarchies in research are, what it means to challenge them, and what it means to empower participants. This is the first study to explore these concepts in-depth through interviews with researchers. As well as contributing a pragmatic overview of many of the understandings and strategies that researchers use in empowerment-focused CBR projects, this research also questions some assumptions underlying researchers’ perspectives to contribute to ongoing critical discussion. As an exploratory case study, rather than defending a particular hypothesis, this research will serve as a foundation for future investigation into power and empowerment in research.
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 | 0.045 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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".