Conversations from the field: Stakeholders’ perspectives on inclusive education in western Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we critically examine issues related to disability inclusive education in the global South. Specifically, we discuss our work on inclusive education in western Kenya. We acknowledge how such practices are often framed within global North perspectives, and use methodologies and approaches from these same spaces and places. Such methodologies tend to be steered by powerful stakeholders and donors that may not always be sensitive to local contexts, concerns, and demands. In this article, we outline how we incorporate Critical Disability Studies (CDS) to address these concerns while working towards a bottom-up approach with multiple local stakeholders of inclusive education. Specifically, we discuss how we centred the stories of disabled and non-disabled students and their parents, teachers at special and primary schools and their respective head teachers, and disabled and non-disabled community members to create the foundations of a sustainable inclusive education system. We use quotes from various stakeholders to shape our discussions, and highlight spaces where applying foundations of CDS was useful in creating bottom-up approaches to disability inclusive education reform.
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 | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.061 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".