Re-drawing the map: a case study of decolonized research methods & methodologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Decolonized research methodologies aim to challenge existing power structures and amplify community voices, yet there is little guidance on their practical application. This study documents the methodological process, adaptations, and outcomes of applying decolonized research methods in a qualitative exploratory study on adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Freedom Park, South Africa. METHODS: This study is a methods documentation of lessons learned in an exploratory study. We applied a decolonized methodology, which incorporated elements of PAR, Indigenous, and co-design research approaches, engaging a Community Advisory Committee to collaboratively design research and data collection methods. RESULTS: We used the research processes of this study to demonstrate how decolonized methodologies can be applied and integrated into research. The Community Advisory Committee's involvement resulted in a unique adaptation of body mapping that was culturally relevant, and prioritized anonymity, community context, and participant comfort. The research process emphasized reciprocity, non-hierarchical collaboration, and collective knowledge production, challenging traditional Western research paradigms. Participants were highly engaged, and the adapted method facilitated open discussions on sexual and reproductive health topics that might otherwise be stigmatized. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates how decolonized methodologies can be effectively implemented through community co-design, centering local knowledge while addressing power imbalances in research. The findings highlight the importance of self-determination in research design and the potential for adapted participatory methods to enhance data validity and community impact. Future research should continue to explore and document practical applications of decolonized methodologies to inform ethical and contextually appropriate research practices.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.191 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".