Critical and Emerging Discourses in Multicultural Education Literature: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article has three objectives. First, it examines critical discourses in the academic literature on multicultural education that point to the major conceptual flaws in multicultural education theory that led to practices that have achieved effects opposite to the intent of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Second, it identifies some of the suggestions being made in the context of the "post-multiculturalism" discourse on how to overcome these flaws in multicultural education theory and practice. And, third, it discusses some possible implications of the key findings of the review for multicultural education. Current multicultural education practices in Canada based on ethno-racial distinctions (i.e., curricula essentializing knowledge about "Other" cultures and celebrating them) have not contributed to the elimination of racism nor the unequal treatment of minority non-White students, nor have they led to the critical examination of the dominant White, middle-class Eurocentric culture. However, the review also demonstrates that the complexity of the issues identified as problematic within multicultural theory and practice makes it difficult to formulate a unified multicultural education mission that speaks to the multiplicity of identities, fluidity of culture, negotiation of power in the cultural space, and the new politics of difference based on universal dignity and equality. It is even more difficult to organize and implement such a mission especially in the absence of a federal multicultural education policy. Suggestions as to how provincial ministries of education might use the identified shifts in the meaning of culture, cultural difference, cultural identities, citizenship, and civic and national identities are provided. Cet article poursuit trois objectifs : en premier, nous y examinons les discours critiques dans les publications universitaires qui relèvent les défauts conceptuels majeurs dans la théorie de l'éducation multiculturelle et une mise en pratique qui a atteint des résultats opposés à ceux visés par la Loi sur le multiculturalisme canadien. Deuxièmement, nous signalons quelques suggestions parmi celles proposées dans le contexte du discours « post- multiculturel » sur la manière de surmonter ces défauts dans la théorie en question et son application. Et en troisième lieu, nous nous arrêtons à quelques implications possibles des découvertes cruciales qui découlent de cet examen critique de l'éducation multiculturelle. La conduite actuelle de cette dernière au Canada s'appuie sur des distinctions ethno-raciales (par exemple, des programmes scolaires portant essentiellement sur la connaissance des cultures de l'« Autre » et sur leur célébration) et elle n'a contribué à éliminer ni le racisme, ni le traitement inégal de la minorité des étudiants non-blancs; elle n'a pas non plus mené à un examen critique de la culture dominante blanche et eurocentrée de la classe moyenne. Cependant, cette recension prouve aussi que la complexité des questions identifiées comme posant problème au sein même de la théorie multiculturelle et de sa mise en pratique, rend difficile la formulation d'une mission concernant une éducation ad hoc unifiée qui puisse s'adresser à la multiplicité des identités, à la fluidité des cultures, à la négociation du pouvoir dans le domaine culturel et aux nouvelles politiques fondées sur la dignité et l'égalité universelles. Il est particulièrement encore plus difficile d'organiser et de remplir une telle mission en l'absence d'une politique fédérale en éducation multiculturelle. Cet article offre enfin des suggestions sur la manière dont les ministères provinciaux en éducation pourraient se servir des mutations identifiées dans les concepts de culture, de différence et d'identités culturelles, de citoyenneté et d'identités civiques et nationales.
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 | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".