Navigating ethical terrains: perspectives on "research ethics" in Kakuma refugee camp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A dearth of scholarship has examined the phenomenon of research ethics from the perspectives of young people living in refugee camps. The following three-manuscript dissertation explores how refugee young people, living in Kakuma refugee camp (Kenya), comprehend and make sense of participating in research. By examining theoretical constructions of research ethics with refugee young people, who have previously participated in research, this dissertation inquires how research participants report the impact and effects of participating as researched subjects. Via a critical ethnographic methodology, including qualitative interview methods, 31 refugee young people explored the underpinnings of "ethical research" in Kakuma refugee camp. The participants were positioned as the experts of research ethics in Kakuma refugee camp. Data indicate that multiple contradictions and discrepancies exist between the values of research ethics for (a) refugee young people in Kakuma refugee camp and (b) the foundations of ethical research scholarship/protocols. For instance, participants reported that researchers did not necessarily provide "benefits" or "respect" during their previous research experiences. Given the disparities in the constructions of research ethics, multiple theoretical prisms were utilized throughout the three manuscripts: postcolonialism approaches, anti-oppression research, self-reflexivity, power, and decolonizing practices. By situating refugee young people as experts in research ethics, this dissertation also presents participant-centered research recommendations for future researchers. These include providing feedback to participants, exercising direct and transparent communication, following up with research recommendations, and reflecting on one's research and personal objectives in Kakuma. Findings of this research reaffirm the responsibility of social work researchers, practitioners, and educators to explore "ethics" when engaging with communities that experience displacement, marginalization, and oppression.
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 | 0.095 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.059 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".