Reflections of Indigenous, racialized, and Global South practitioners and scholars on liberatory community wellbeing and mental health praxis: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explores how Indigenous, racialized, and Global South practitioners and scholars engage in liberatory praxis, drawing on decolonial theory and critical psychologies, to reimagine community wellbeing and mental health (CWMH) beyond Western-based psychological frameworks. The study addresses the need for culturally relevant, reflective, and justice-oriented approaches that center relational care and collective healing. Using purposive sampling, I conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 participants (7 women, 4 men) across Lebanon, Palestine, South Africa, the United States, Australia, India, and Indonesia. Using thematic analysis, I identified six key themes: (1) integrate experiential, reflexive, and community-based knowledge; (2) critique the harms of modernity/coloniality in psychology frameworks; (3) use counterstorytelling to resist dominant narratives; (4) engage in personal and collective healing, unlearning, and liberation; (5) approach praxis as a nonlinear and evolving process; and (6) challenge academic and professional spaces and discuss creating alternative collectives in these spaces. These insights demonstrate the limitations of Western psychological models and affirm the importance of culturally relevant and liberatory praxis in CWMH. In response to this study, emerging collectives have formed in Canada, Lebanon, and the United States to extend these practices through shared praxis, mutual care, and community-based application.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".