Educational improvement to whose images? – A coloniality perspective of higher education policy in Taiwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent reform movement of higher education policies, which are modeled on the top-ranked Western higher education institutions globally, has significantly impacted the administrative model among universities in Taiwan. This study takes the Higher Education Sprout Project, one of the current governmental higher education policies, as an example to examine the problem representation of the policy discourse and how one regionally selective university responds to the policy. This study aims to provide an alternative perspective to unpack how the global university rankings and the entrenched “world-class” imaginary have represented higher education improvement agenda in Taiwan. By bringing light to a coloniality perspective, this study argues that the ongoing colonial logic has been promoted and perpetuated by current higher education policies, which have reshaped the institutional mission of Taiwanese universities. The long-term misinterpreted connotation of “internationalization” and the entrenched “world-class” ideology within policy discourses have overlooked and systemically denied the Western hegemony of epistemic violence, as well as the Anglo-American dominated academic coloniality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".