The âWill to Participateâ: Governmentality, Power, and Community-Based Participatory Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although critiques of participatory development attend to knowledge/power, Anglo-American literature on community-based participatory research (CBPR) is largely silent on the politics of these collaborations.As the "will to participate" is increasingly normalized for communities and CBPR is naturalized as socially just research, it is crucial that we inquire into the uneven terrain of the collaborative encounter.The CBPR literature makes claims to emancipatory, empowering, and egalitarian relations that articulate a largely unproblematic, harmonious encounter.Yet these claims remain under-scrutinized.Furthermore, little is known of how participatory practices operate as a technique to access and appropriate community knowledge, while leaving power asymmetries intact.This paper deploys a Foucauldian governmentality framework to explore how CBPR's relations of power collude with the macro rationalities of the neo-liberalism, inclusive liberalism, and the moral imperialisms of the knowledge economy to produce participatory subjects and spaces "outside" of socio-political histories and presents.Critical reflections on two CBPR projects are woven into a theoretical reading that explores the limits of participatory approaches and its uneven power relations as ethical problems.
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 | 0.088 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.218 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".