Critiquing Instrumentalism in High Education: Lessons from Teaching as a Meditative Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this conceptual and self-reflective essay, the authors begin from the premise that the contemporary higher educational institutions in Canada and many other parts of the world have increasingly tended to focus on instrumental teaching, rooted in neoliberal and capitalist ideals of societal progress through economic development. The result is that higher education centralizes making students career ready, rather than the holistic development of the student. Critical of this, Ashwani Kumar (professor of Education) and Nayha Acharya (professor of Law), undertake a collaborative effort to discuss how Kumar’s theoretical and practical concept of teaching as meditative inquiry can be an antidote to instrumentalism in higher education. In the first part of this essay, Kumar describes his concept of teaching as meditative inquiry by unfolding its theoretical rooting and giving practical examples of how he has used this approach in his teacher education and graduate education courses as well as in his doctoral seminar in contemporary educational theory at Mount Saint Vincent University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. In the second part, Acharya narrates her experimentation with the teaching as meditative inquiry approach in her Alternative Dispute Resolution course, which she teaches at the Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Providing concrete examples from their experiences of using a meditative inquiry approach to teaching and learning, the authors describe 1) the value of giving students the space to discover their own intrinsic relationship with the subject matter being taught, 2) how passion, authenticity and creativity can be enabled in the classroom, and 3) the challenges of adopting teaching as meditative inquiry approach in the classroom.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| 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".