An Ethics of Repair? Towards Reparative Principles in the History of Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Histories of education are closely entwined with agendas of reparative justice, redress and reconciliation. Educational questions, past and present, have been central to recent debates about redress, and historical thinking has a vital role to play in making sense of the afterlives of violence that are history’s present. This includes exposing the role of education in justifying human exceptionalism and legitimating violence as well as radically re-historicising educational pasts from entangled, decolonial, and post-anthropocentric perspectives, work that is already underway. This conceptual paper takes up these intersecting imperatives for repair and the revaluation of historical research in education. It asks: what might reparative histories of education look like? What might constitute an ethics of repair for the history of education? To address these questions, three principles concerned with the repair of past injustices are canvassed: complex implication, care and concern, and legibility. The goal is not to normatively prescribe or evaluate principles, but to explore how these are already informing some kinds of historical work, and to provoke dialogue about how we might develop reparative dimensions to our work in a world that desperately needs repair.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".