A Critical Review of the U.S. Literature on Race and Adult Education – Implications for Widening Access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A commonly stated goal for adult education is its aspiration to create equality of opportunity but often the opposite occurs. The historical treatment of race within adult education in the U.S and Canada serves as an illustration of how leaders within the field have defined what matters and furthermore of their understanding of key issues. The paper argues that to discuss race in adult education, we must recognize the absence of the concept of whiteness. Adult education literature is considered from this position and in particular the paper examines how race has been treated historically in adult education using three perspectives on race that inform contemporary action in adult education. Specific suggestions for widening access for adults in higher education are made. It is argued that rather than ‘a no-barrier thinking’, we need ‘barrier-thinking’ so that we may construct a future where race does not matter. A three-part strategy based on an examination of the hidden curriculum, negotiation for a new educational structure and actively resisting from within an enfranchised position of comfort is set forth for consideration.
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 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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".