Freirean Conceptions of Participatory Action Research and Teaching for Social Justice - Same Struggle, Different Fronts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are similar assumptions between participatory action research (PAR) and teaching for social justice (TSJ). Much of this paper focuses on the influence of Brazilian educator Paulo Freire on both PAR and TSJ. Personal anecdotes with both PAR and TSJ from my twenty years of experience as a teacher educator/researcher in western Canada demonstrate Freirean approaches. In their most successful incarnations, both PAR and TSJ use critical theory to deconstruct hegemony, utilize critical discourse analysis, and engage in ideology critique. Both aim to challenge the forces that give rise to false political consciousness. PAR concentrates on the subjectivity and lived experiences of the research participants. The TSJ approach I employ is also based on the lived experience of the students. Freirean conceptions of political consciousness-raising, or conscientização, is integral to both TSJ and PAR. Freire’s model for TSJ promotes a more progressive role for the school that encompasses pedagogy based on critical inquiry. Schools should unveil and transform oppressive practices and social arrangements that are created by unfair social hierarchies created by patriarchy, white supremacy, and unregulated capitalism. Freire emphasized the concept of praxis in his educational theory for emancipation. Praxis is the embodiment of students using their new found knowledge and political consciousness to employ agency and challenge the sources and structures of oppression. Praxis underlies Freire’s perspectives on both PAR and TSJ.
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 | 0.073 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.192 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".