Living the Paradox of Risk: An Approach for Teachers in Democratically Challenging Situations in Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay elaborates on the notion of risk in relation to democratically challenging situations in education. This refers to situations in which liberal democratic values are potentially challenged, such as in teaching about controversial issues and in moments of expressions of hurtful speech, which can create in teachers an ambivalence for how to act. The essay takes an understanding of risk as holding a plurality, viewing risk as both undesirable and desirable, to be both reduced and embraced. By considering perspectives that implicitly relate to risk in various ways, this essay explores what can be made possible by embracing risk or its reduction in democratically challenging situations. These perspectives envisage tension between different approaches to risk and visualize how risk may be viewed both as possible moments of change and as possible moments of violence. The essay advances the argument that a one-sided approach to risk may thus pose a challenge to the struggle for democracy, arguing instead for a complex approach to risk. Making use of Jonna Bornemark’s work on the “paradox of action,” the essay proposes the viewing of risk as a paradox, spanning our world of action. The paradox formulates a mutual dependence, in which more is required of one side in one moment and more of the other in the next; neither can be neglected. The essay proposes an approach for teachers: “living the paradox of risk,” which is to act in the space between reducing risk and embracing risk in democratically challenging situations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".