Decolonial options in education – interrupting coloniality and inviting alternative conversations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the call for papers to this special issue of the Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, the purpose was to initiate a conversation on decolonial options in education. This might not bean expected focus for an education journal based in the Nordics, in light of the strong and tenacious denial of coloniality as at all relevant in the genealogy of the nation-states as well as educational systems in this context (Eidsvik, 2012; Eriksen, 2018a; Fylkesnes, 2019; Gullestad, 2002; Keskinen et al. 2009; Loftsdottir & Jensen, 2012; Mikander, 2014). We wanted to explore what and how a conversation on decolonial options from the Nordics could hear, feel, and look like. We are truly grateful for the contributions included in this special issue. The texts represent different and rich perspectives on decoloniality and illustrate the complexity of this conversation across varied contexts. They provide contributions that address and interrupt the coloniality of educational theory, practice, and research, and explore ways of thinking, doing, and materialising education otherwise. Although the decolonial critique powerfully shows us that location matters, we have also included several contributions from outside the Nordic context, including what is currently known as Canada, Argentina and Australia. These contributions remind us how we can learn from each other and think collectively, and how the conversation on decoloniality must be at once local and global. This is fundamental when starting from the field of Comparative and International Education (CIE), which while aiming at celebrating the diversity of education around the world is still embedded in colonial logics and Eurocentric perspectives (Takayama et al., 2017).
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 | 0.029 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".