Anthropology and Participatory Research: Ethical Considerations in International Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthropologists working in the field of development may encounter a number of difficult ethical issues, although there is comparatively little literature that directly addresses such dilemmas. Potential concerns include questions of access to development and participation in projects and plans; questions about how research is used; issues of power differentials in the field; and the problem of ownership of knowledge. Participatory development research rhetoric and practice has in part arisen out of recognition of these ethical concerns. Through an examination of the history of international development research, and the bases upon which participation lies, it is argued that the concept of participation is not without its own ethical dilemmas and assumptions. A discussion of the history and interpretation of development and participation in parts of rural Nepal is used to illustrate this argument.
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 | 0.225 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.178 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".