In search of “Asian perspectives” in the field of adult education: From Asian perspectives to deimperialization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract What constitutes an “Asian perspective” in the field of adult education? Through a literature review of journal articles from 1990 to 2023 on adult education in the geographical category of Asia, I analyzed how these discussions connect to an Asian perspective. I identified five approaches through which Asian voices have been articulated in the literature: (1) distinct and shared cultural traditions, (2) ambiguities in Asian diaspora transitions, (3) local and/or historical practices applying the lens of Western or external theories, (4) local and/or historical experiences with a focus on practice, and (5) Indigenous/independent theorizing. In addition to a need to de‐reify theory by contextualizing processes of theorizing, I argue for deimperialization in the field of adult education—a need to interrogate imperial imaginaries that persist in education theorizing and practices across Asian regions and making the category of “Asians” fluid by historicizing relations of power such as colonialism, imperialism, and neoliberal capitalism.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".