A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Evolution of Indigenous Education Policies in Colombia and Mexico and the Struggles for Decolonization and Pluriversality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research on Indigenous educational policies (IEPs) in the postcolonial histories of Colombia and Mexico focuses on: 1) identifying key normative concepts encoded in IEPs adopted in national policymaking, 2) analyzing how the evolution of normative concepts relates to political tensions between state, Indigenous, and international actors, and 3) discussing how the evolution of IEPs expose achievements and obstacles to decolonial struggles to advance Indigenous rights and pluriversal knowledges. A critical discourse analysis of laws and regulations adopted between1820 and 2020 in Mexico and Colombia shows a gradual and conflictive recognition of cultural and political rights, most recently through normative concepts like bilingualism, biculturalism, interculturalism, autonomy, and self-determination. These discursive shifts have operated, however, against the backdrop of ongoing political struggles of Indigenous peoples to demand that nation-states implement the agreements and principles enacted. This history of IEPs thus illuminates continuing tensions between the semiotic and material conditions of Indigenous communities as well as emerging practices of resistance and organization that may carry implications for further policy development.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".