From Elusive Conceptions to Arrested Developments: Leadership for Social Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The general question guiding this research is: how do equity minded administrators lead for social justice? The following specific questions are addressed in this study: How have participants become oriented to social justice? How do educational administrators conceptualize leadership for social justice? What are the barriers and supports that participants experienced in leading for social justice in diverse contexts? What are some (participant-identified) examples of how they lead for social justice?\n\tFrom a critical perspective this study examines the experiences of educational administrators leading for social justice. Vital to this examination are analyses of power relations and the locatedness of participants within those relations. At the core of these power relations are participant experiences of social justice as contingent on the interconnectedness between their lived realities and the “doing” of social justice as espoused by and evidenced in their approaches to leadership for social justice. For this study I have interviewed ten administrators from Southern Ontario, who self-identify as being committed to and leading for social justice and have been in formal positions of leadership for at least five years. Interviewees were able to identify and articulate the interconnected experiences of lived realities and their commitments to leadership for social justice; critical examples of social justice praxis; and facets of the educational systems which supported and, conversely, erected barriers to their leading for social justice.\n\tConclusions, implications and recommendations can be broadly organized as issues related to systemic and structural processes, support and accountability for the hiring, retention and promotion of diverse school personnel who have evidenced commitments to social justice, the retraining and retooling of educators and leaders through curriculum centred on social justice, the dramatic restructuring of educational administrative thought by practitioners and researchers, and the critical inclusion of the community, students, parents and trustees in roles that substantively impact the decision making power within the educational system (from the overall governance of the educational system to everyday activities).
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".