Picking a hill to die on: discreet activism, leadership and social justice in education
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe a study that explores the discreet activist strategies of educational leaders who promote social justice. Design/methodology/approach Part of a larger project, this study employed qualitative methods. In particular, researchers interviewed 26 leaders – principals, vice principals, department heads, and central office officials who presided over both homogeneous and diverse schools, departments, and districts in and around a large Canadian city. Data were analyzed during and after data collection, and themes were identified, explored, and described. Findings Given the resistance they faced in their efforts to promote social justice, leaders found that they had to be strategic in their efforts. In particular, they had to position themselves in ways that reduced their visibility and increased their credibility. When they took action, they tended to adopt subtle rather than obvious strategies. Originality/value The harsh reality for activist educational leaders who promote social justice is that they will likely have to be strategic in the way they go about their work. Given the nature of their relationships with the organizations in which they work and the power differentials within which they operate, educational leaders may have to adopt low key or discreet strategies if they are to successfully promote their social justice agendas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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