Unsettling Gadamerian Hermeneutic Inquiry: Engaging the <i>Colonial Difference</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is an exploration of the opportunities and limitations of engaging Gadamerian philosophical hermeneutics in interpretation of Indigenous scholarly texts, and the complications of a non-Indigenous scholar doing this work. Through highlighting the challenges of my Settler positionality and colonial dynamics in a specific inquiry project, I argue that Gadamerian hermeneutics provides opportunities for self-reflexive textual analysis. I also note the problematics wherein Gadamer universalizes particular Western ontological assumptions in his theorizing. I share the ways I unsettled Gadamerian hermeneutics through engaging with the “colonial difference.” To illustrate the possibilities, I share a framework that I developed through the scholarship of Indigenous scholar Michael Marker to engage the ontological priorities of Indigenous scholarly texts in place. I share this work in the hopes of influencing broader engagement with decolonial practices in hermeneutic inquiry.
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 | 0.030 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".