Reconsidering partnerships in education in emergencies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International actors increasingly advocate for partnerships in education in emergencies (EiE) to address the dire educational opportunities of school-aged children in sites of disaster, armed conflict, forced migration, and other humanitarian crises. This study explores the nature of partnerships in EiE. We examine the impetus behind an expansion of partnerships among diverse global actors and key characteristics, relationships, and dynamics within these partnerships. Using data collected from key informant interviews and documents from organizations involved in the Syria refugee education response (2018-2021), we detail two emerging characteristics of partnerships in EiE: (1) market-based principles in rhetoric and practice; and (2) a rise in private sector participation. While partnerships aim to improve coordination between agencies, our study uncovers the counterintuitive finding that competition characterizes the EiE partnership space more often than coordination. Furthermore, despite the education and humanitarian community’s promotion of a “localization agenda”—prioritizing full participation of affected local communities as partners in education policy and implementation—our research points to a maintained hierarchy where international actors hold most influence in EiE. We discuss the practical implications of this power asymmetry within the broader context of marketized humanitarianism, and raise concerns regarding equity within unchecked partnerships.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it