Cultivating Relationality and an Ethics of Care through Arts-Based and Play-Based Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we make practical and theoretical contributions to feminist adult education. Practically, we provide an overview of a three-hour arts- and play-based research workshop with research activities/tools that readers can further research to adapt to their own contexts. Theoretically, we explore how these creative practices can contribute to wider notions of relationality and ethics of care when integrated with Indigenous, decolonising, and intersectional, feminist approaches. After offering a rich description of arts- and play-based methods (photovoice, found poetry, collage, narrative métissage, river journey, and lego visioning), we discuss how creative methods and practices hold the potential to foster deeper connections, promote collective accountability, and support the ongoing work of decolonising education. We encourage future research to further explore the intersection of these practices with feminist adult education, and to continue expanding our collective understanding of how to cultivate care, responsibility, and reciprocity in teaching and learning settings.
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 | 0.024 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.092 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".