Intersectionality and Solidarity in Curriculum-Making Theatre Encounters with Marginalized Youth Researcher-Artists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, drawn from my doctoral study, I argue that applied theatre encounters can serve as methods of Deweyian social inquiry and as curriculum-making events that illuminate how youths perceive their roles in social resistance and that offer them an opportunity to serve as artists, researchers, activists and public pedagogues. I situate the study in the field of curriculum studies by placing the research project itself in relation to a William Doll’s 4Rs model of curriculum principles: Richness, Recursion, Relations and Rigor. I posit that the research-based applied theatre practice of ethnodrama can potentially serve as an educational space wherein marginalized youths can integrate qualitative research and experiential knowledge as facilitators of a more just society. The 12 racialized, socioeconomically under-resourced youth participants in Toronto focused on intersectionality and solidarity in their ethnodrama action project. I explore the pedagogical, political and artistic choices these youths made in the process of both devising and presenting their original theatrical piece.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".