Pedagogical and strategic blind spots: Critical and Indigenous theories of education in dialogue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper advances a theoretical analysis of the similarities and differences between critical theories of education and Indigenous theories of education along three main themes: epistemological and ontological groundings, the means of education, and political projects. While both schools of theory critique neoliberal and neoconservative tendencies in curriculum and in the political economy of education, and both promote pedagogies favoring freedom from oppression, respect, and sustainability divergences in the two schools of thought are important to grasp for theoretical and strategic reasons. This paper delineates these differences and arrives at the following broad conclusions: (1) while critical theories of education are epistemologically contentious, Indigenous theories of education are ontologically rebellious; (2) while critical scholars emphasize protecting and improving public schools in the name of preserving a public good, they largely ignore how the political economy of education and different political goals encourage Indigenous educators to turn towards options beyond the traditional public school for creating alternative educational spaces; and (3) while critical scholars promote a remaking of the public sphere to increase the participation and opportunities of all individuals within it, Indigenous scholars in education favor a model of schooling capable of raising citizens that are first citizens of their own communities, and then citizens of broader communities; this tension might be best illuminated by a liberal versus a communitarian political philosophy. This paper concludes in arguing that while the two bodies of literature have much in common, a pro-public school discourse, as well as new theories for intercultural pedagogy, should address the divergences evident in these themes.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.118 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".