Operationalising Anti‐Oppression in Doctoral Nursing Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Outline the rationale, experiences and vision for a progressive pedagogy in nursing doctoral education that embraces collaboration and collective world-building as strategies for developing liberatory knowledge. DESIGN: Conceptual exploration and vision statement grounded in the pedagogical theories of hooks and Freire. METHODS: Theoretical analysis of emancipatory pedagogies, review of existing literature on collaboration in doctoral programs and a reflective account. The framework proposed is informed by bell hooks' engaged pedagogy and Freire's critical pedagogy. RESULTS: The paper identifies the limitations of traditional, individualistic approaches in doctoral nursing programs and proposes a re-envisioned pedagogical framework that emphasises community and collective inquiry. CONCLUSION: The proposed progressive pedagogy for doctoral nursing education seeks to operationalise anti-oppression and decolonisation by fostering a collaborative and community-based approach to knowledge production. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: Implementing this progressive pedagogical framework in doctoral nursing education can lead to the development of researchers who are better equipped to address social problems such as racism, oppression and health inequity. REPORTING METHOD: EQUATOR guidelines are not applicable. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct or reporting.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".