Care <i>-full</i> pedagogy: Conceptualizing feminist care ethics as an overarching critical framework to interrupt the dominance of developmentalism within post-secondary early childhood education programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article offers a theoretical provocation through conceptualizing a pedagogy of care as a means of caring with students and each other to interrupt the dominance of developmentalism in Canadian post-secondary early childhood education programs. The authors’ conceptualization of care -full as pedagogy is rooted in the premises that education is always ethical and political, and caring about, for and with others is necessary to establish equitable, democratic spaces at the post-secondary level. In contrast to the developmental framework embraced in many Canadian post-secondary early childhood education programs, the authors describe how a critical, care -full overarching pedagogical framework provides room for educators and students to deeply and meaningfully explore developmentalism and other theoretical frameworks. They argue that a pedagogy of care rooted in feminist care ethics and Freire's critical theory can contribute to establishing a safe learning climate where developmentalism can be critiqued and alternative ways to think about children's development can be contested, explored and debated. As the authors are conceptualizing it, a care-full pedagogical framework intentionally supports the intellectual, ethical and political risk-taking necessary for critique and alternative thinking. They follow this provocation through by imagining what a care -full pedagogy might look and feel like in a post-secondary early childhood education course on child development.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".