Building inclusive democratic engagement: Incorporating interracial-communication pedagogy into public-participation instruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building interracial communication pedagogy into instruction in public participation is essential for democratic learning in multiracial societies, since racial inequality—rooted in histories of colonialism, enslavement, and segregation—continues to structure democratic participation in postcolonial nations. After reviewing the literature on interracial-communication pedagogy in public-participation instruction, this paper sets out an original theoretical framework—consisting of consciousness raising; storytelling and reflection; the empowering, challenging, and protecting of learners; skill building; and utopianism—for analyzing interracial-communication teaching strategies in the context of public-participation trainings and courses. That framework is then applied in a comparison of interracial-communication instructional practices—and challenges implementing those practices—in South Africa, the UK, and the U.S. Results indicate that the theoretical framework is generally congruent with the observed teaching strategies. The results suggest the value of cross-national comparisons of interracial-communication pedagogical practices in the context of public-participation instruction. In addition, this study indicates that incorporating interracial-communication teaching strategies into trainings and courses in public participation can prepare students and community members for active participation in more inclusive democratic societies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".