Dreaming New Visions: Indigenous thinkers on decolonising education.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
De-colonial thinking and action must grapple with the antithetical nature of education: that it has the potential to both liberate and oppress. In the Canadian context, for instance, settler society used residential schools in the assimilationist mission to ‘kill the Indian’ in the Indigenous child, and education is now considered by Indigenous leaders as a site for building more than just relations (TRC, 2012; Donald, 2011). This article turns close attention to two Indigenous theorists to think through this tension: Linda Tuhiwei Smith, and Sandy Grande, who have been selected due to their importance in this field. Their work is particularly valuable due to their ability to identify and critique some core traits of colonial power that have been felt across continents and borders in different colonial contexts (meaning they have influenced leading scholars and practitioners internationally) (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). While Smith’s work considers research methods, and how they take shape within higher education, to examine and inform research design and ethics, the focus of this paper is on the implications of her arguments for education and pedagogy specifically (Smith, 2012). Grande’s work looks explicitly at education, and within a cultural and historical backdrop distinct from Smith’s: Indigenous peoples and schooling in America (Grande, 2015). This article advances that in positioning these theorists together, it is possible to see key themes emerge across different contexts. In particular, it illuminates how colonisation operates through epistemic violence articulated and reproduced through education, and how making space for subjugated knowledges through education is a key step in decolonisation. Crucially, it is suggested in this paper, this must involve pedagogical shifts that reflect the subjugated knowledges of colonised peoples, and not simply curricular nods to their cultures, histories and experiences.
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 | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| 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".