Doing feminist difference differently: intersectional pedagogical practices in the context of the neoliberal diversity regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At present there is a small, albeit growing, body of literature on pedagogical strategies and reflections which addresses the ways educators attempt to challenge the effects of neoliberalism on higher education. In this article, we reflect upon our pedagogical practices in higher education in this moment of neoliberal transformation wherein, as Sirma Bilge notes, intersectionality is being ‘undone’ in academic feminism. As graduate students teaching in Toronto, Canada, we describe how our commitment to social justice pedagogy works against this ‘undoing’ of intersectionality by embracing vulnerability, discomfort and the possibility of conflict in classrooms that do not simply accommodate, celebrate or include difference. Given that neoliberal renderings of diversity obscure and reinforce unequal relations of power, we demonstrate how we attend to these power relations, particularly racism which is salient to our teaching context, by employing intersectionality as a pedagogical practice and a political intervention to advance social justice.
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 | 0.029 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.094 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 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".