Considering an Ethic of Care Framework to Counter Colonial Violence in International Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This collaborative, theoretical essay considers how an Embodied Ethic of Care Framework (Sodhi, 2022) could offer a different way of being in internationalized educational contexts in Canada. We begin by describing international education in the Canadian context. We explain how a federal international education strategy that is focused on boosting the economy rather than on education leads to “conditional hospitality” (Ahmed, 2012) and the commodification of international students (Guo & Guo, 2017). We then introduce the Embodied Ethic of Care Framework which is informed by Black feminist thought and Indigenous African thought (Sodhi, 2022). The framework recognizes the collective energy of community (Sodhi, 2022). We juxtapose the five elements of the framework to instances of international education in Canada. Because language-based discrimination is still a commonly accepted practice in Canadian post-secondary institutions (Martin, 2022), our descriptions of internationalized contexts in Canada attend to languaging and dialoguing. We demonstrate how current connections with international students are transactional – which replicates harmful historical relationships between people of colour, capitalism, and colonialism. The Embodied Ethic of Care Framework is an antidote for this form of colonial violence because it places relationship building at the center. Through echolocation (Gumbs, 2020), we invite readers to consider how an ethic of care framework might inspire a different way of being that could redress coloniality and systemic racism in internationalized contexts in Canada and/or in their own contexts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".