Uncomfortable truths: Teaching about race and anti-Indigenous racism in the classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anti-Indigenous racism education is often framed as a way to improve non-discriminatory care for Indigenous peoples. This study asked: What happens when anti-Indigenous racism is taken up by educators? What makes it challenging to manage in an adult classroom? What strategies are (un)successful? Ten adult educators participated—Indigenous (n = 4), White (n = 3) and non-Indigenous People of Colour (n = 3)—in either an interview or focus group. A phenomenological approach guided interpretation of participant narratives. Findings revealed persistent anti-Indigenous racist violence in adult educational settings. Successfully challenging anti-Indigenous racism required deep educator knowledge, self-awareness, cultural humility and strong facilitation skills. The traumatic toll on Indigenous educators and differing responses to resistance highlighted how racism is experienced and addressed differently by Indigenous, non-Indigenous People of Colour and White educators. This study provides empirical evidence for the need for pedagogical strategies that improve cultural safety, support educators and meaningfully confront anti-Indigenous racism in adult education classrooms.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".