Diluting Democracy: Arts Education, Indigenous Policy, and the Paradoxes of Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses how populist discourses surrounding the notion of voice can safeguard-perhaps contradictorily-spaces for undemocratic exertion of power, influence, and privilege.I argue that managerial democracy and vocality-a distortion of the potential found in the intersection between voice and agency-have become rather apt at appropriating artistic critique and disruptive cultural strategies into existing capital forms of action, thus working to neutralize its subversive potential (Boltanski and Capello 2005).In this article, I articulate a vision of policy practices as a personal and communal enterprise that aligns with the critical artwork that Chantal Mouffe calls for as a form of hegemonic disruption.The discussion ends by situating these challenges within issues related to post-colonial relations and the urgent and timely politics of indigenization of educational practices and curricula, including those in art and in music education.
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 | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".