Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of this paper is an exploration of Pratt’s notion of the contact zone in understanding and enacting curriculum in international education. The last two decades have seen a rapid growth in the internationalization of higher education, which needs to be understood alongside the conditions of globalization and the consequential market orientation of higher education, and neo-colonial contexts of history, culture and power. In searching for conceptual lenses that advance understanding of curriculum in these conditions, I use Mary Louise Pratt’s (1992/2008) book ‘Imperial Eyes: Travel writing and transculturation’, an account of travel writing in the European colonial era. The book is an analysis of ‘centre-periphery relations and a critique of the political, cultural and economic ideologies that drove colonialism. Pratt’s framework of the contact zone and concepts such as anti-conquest are useful in identifying the pitfalls of an uncritical enactment of international education in current times, and in identifying the characteristics of the status quo of curriculum in the contact zone. I argue that Pratt’s notions of transculturation and autoethnography could decenter and disrupt the inequitable relations in the contact zone of the globalizing university by illuminating the possibilities of improvisation and appropriation as desirable outcomes. Thus, the internationalization of curriculum in the context of the globalizing campus encourages and recognizes the role of transculturation in provoking a curricular ‘talking back’.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".