Search

This paper proposes that the paradigm of relationality, engaged methodologically, can be the basis of praxis that purposefully moves away from business-oriented notions of "best practices" and toward education research that meets the needs of Indigenous and Black communities currently designing futures within settler colonial states during climate catastrophe. In so doing, the paper considers what a critical Indigenous research paradigm requires of researchers, what a critical Black epistemology requires, and what we can learn by bringing the two together in a relational approach to qualitative research. Relationality is defined and placed in historical context. The author's positionality is engaged by exploring his relationship to relationality through examination of the confluence of Black and Indigenous epistemologies in the United States. Through auto-reflection on a qualitative study of land-based education, this paper analyzes research "openings" as an example of relational methodology praxis. The paper offers a critical analysis of specific, detailed methodological actions undertaken to practice relationality in order to create cracks in existing educational research methodologies through which relationality can take root.

This replication study tests the repeatability of the study conducted by Adelaja and George (2019a) on the relation between Boko Haram related events of armed conflict and agricultural land use decisions. For the computational reproduction of the original results, we used the same datasets and the same methodological approach. Yet, our findings substantially deviate from the results in the original study. To test the robustness of our own results, we applied comprehensive robustness checks, such as using a different measure for armed conflict, including an additional survey wave of the GHS panel data, and applying two different timewise merging procedures. The results of the robustness checks were very sensitive to changes in the underlying data. Hence, we question the internal validity of the study's findings and argue that there is most likely a more general mismatch between the data, the methodology and the research questions. The bottom-line of this study is not that there are computable differences between Adelaja and George (2019a) and our estimations, but rather that caution should be taken in deriving policy implications from Adelaja and George (2019a) as their results lack internal validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on soil microplastics is currently at an early stage, and there is no widely approved sampling protocol. Even so, any basic research should minimize errors to ensure that they are not amplified in future research. This paper examines some weaknesses of the original research paper 'Soil microplastic pollution under different land uses in tropics, southwestern China' recently published in this journal. The authors neglected to report the equipment used for soil sampling and did not use field blank samples. There is also a soil layer that was incorrectly named. The type and pore size of filter paper used for filtration during pre-analytical soil sample preparation is very important. In this paper the nature of the filter paper used, and its larger pore sizes are questionable by today's scientists. In addition, the authors in the original paper also overlooked reporting the statistical package used for statical analysis and ensuring if all data sets obey normality, homogeneity, and equality before running the one-way ANOVA test. This statistical step is widely considered mandatory, especially in the soil science community. So, this makes it difficult to trust the results documented. Furthermore, in the original paper, the needle and stereo microscope instruments used to sort microplastic-like materials prior to proper analysis are not reliable. [Display omitted] • A dissecting needle and stereo microscope shouldn't be used to sort out soil microplastics. • Gold-coated filter paper with smaller pore size is better than nitrocellulose filter paper. • The 0–10cm is the top soil layer and 10–20cm is the subsoil layer not a deep soil layer. • The statistical package used for analysis must be documented accordingly. • If the dataset is a normal distribution prior to ANOVA testing, it must be confirmed and reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]