“I was just some bimbo behind a desk”: trans and non-binary people’s experiences of harms as peer researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the experiences of transgender and non-binary (TNB) people in peer researcher roles in order to contribute to an understanding of the extent to which peer research is effective in mitigating or reducing the potential harms of research for TNB people.Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 13 TNB peer researchers who had been employed in the 10 years prior in a paid research position that required TNB lived experience. Data were analyzed using approaches drawn from thematic analysis.Results Four major themes were generated that captured the experiences of TNB people in their work as peer researchers: (a) imposition of cis-centric language and frameworks, (b) devaluing of community-based TNB knowledge, (c) experiencing discrimination and oppression on the job, and (d) the importance of anti-oppression and conflict resolution.Conclusion Careful interrogation of peer research practices is needed to mitigate potential harms and create meaningful engagement of TNB people. TNB people should be in positions of leadership from inception to completion of the research to ensure that research projects and teams are not built upon ciscentric and cisnormative frameworks that by definition devalue TNB lives and experiences.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".