Taking on Privilege and Oppression in Practical Theology: A Spatial Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Practical theology has a legacy of privilege and oppression. This is a point of departure for Courtney Goto in Taking on Practical Theology. Goto convincingly argues that what counts as practical theological knowledge is shaped by a dominant paradigm that privileges some and marginalizes others. This is particularly obvious in the way practical theologians approach “context,” a key feature of today’s practical theological scholarship. To deal with privilege and oppression in practical theology, it is necessary to use C/critical, I/intersubjective spaces in order to create a compassionate, just, and responsible community of practical theologians. My thesis is that Goto’s analyses and conclusions could be enriched and strengthened by a spatial perspective. I introduce Henri Lefebvre’s notions of the production of space and the trialectics of space to illustrate the possible contribution of such a spatial perspective. A view of social space in terms of perceived, conceived, and lived space helps us to see a more differentiated picture of the power dynamics in social (and thus also academic) practices. Last, I introduce Edward Soja’s ideas on spatial justice. His views add even more analytical power to the spatial perspective and support our normative vision of justice as integral element of our scholarly practices.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.125 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".