Negotiating Tensions and Roles in International Development: A Workshop for Graduate Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the findings from a qualitative research study involving graduate students who are studying or working in international development. The students participated in an activity-based workshop during which they reflected on and discussed their tensions and concerns about the nature of international development and their roles and positions in this work. Tensions ranged from those on a personal level, where students questioned their individual privilege and power in international development, to those on a structural level, where students questioned the overall nature of development practices. The workshop activities, designed by the author and based on a global education framework (Pike & Selby, 2000), generated group discussion, provoked personal reflection, challenged assumptions and reaffirmed goals. The study addresses the potential pedagogical value of such a workshop in promoting critical self-reflection and raising critical consciousness about one’s politics and practice in international development work. Cet article présente les résultats d'une recherche qualitative concernant des étudiants gradués qui vont étudier ou travailler dans un milieu de développement international. Ces étudiants ont participé à un atelier d'activités où ils ont réfléchi aux tensions et aux soucis vis-à-vis de la nature du développement international, y compris leurs rôles et leurs positions dans ce travail. Les tensions se rangent depuis le niveau personnel, où les étudiants se demandent sur leur privilège individuel et leur pouvoir dans le développement international, jusqu'à celles du niveau structurel, où ils se questionnent la nature globale des pratiques de développement. Les activités de l'atelier, conçues par l'auteur d'après un cadre d'éducation globale (Pike & Selby, 2000) créent des discussions en groupe, provoquent des réflexions personnelles, mettent en question les assomptions et réaffirment les objectifs. L'étude aborde la valeur pédagogique possible d’un tel atelier dans le développement de l'autocritique et dans le soulèvement de la conscience critique sur sa politique et ses pratiques propres dans le travail de développement international.
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 | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; 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".