Strengthening Reflexivity Through Trauma- and Violence-Informed Practice in Action Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflexivity is an integral part of action research and is recognized as an important and necessary indicator of study rigour. A key goal of reflexivity is to ensure that research decisions do not replicate existing (or add new) harm to those whom the research describes or involves, however less attention has been paid to potential harms that researchers themselves may face. This paper brings attention to the vulnerabilities of researchers with lived experiences of trauma and structural violence and explicitly integrates Trauma- and Violence-Informed (TVI) principles into the reflexive process. A case example and “how to” guide are provided to assist researchers in creating safe environments not only for their study participants, but also for the researchers and community co-researchers involved, with particular focus on those conducting sensitive studies in highly (re)traumatizing topic areas.
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 | 0.439 | 0.299 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.098 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".