Exploring Dimensions of Critical Reflection in Activist–Facilitator Practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores how 14 diverse, Canadian activist–facilitators working in international development experience and understand critical reflection as a component of participatory methodologies in facilitation practices. The findings, based on my doctoral study, demonstrate that although critical reflection is often discussed as integral to participatory approaches of facilitation using critical pedagogies, understandings and experiences of what that means in practice vary. For example, study participants often expressed practicing critical reflection through technical-rational approaches and seldom distinguished between critical reflection, reflexivity, and reflection. The findings illustrate three main challenges to applying critical reflection in practice: (1) time and value given to critical reflection; (2) institutional requirements; and (3) personal vulnerability. The results have implications for critical feminist pedagogies, including the development of critically reflective practices that challenge dominant ideologies and hierarchical power structures. The study demonstrates lessons for deepening pedagogical practices around critical reflection and reflexivity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it