Decoloniality – Implications for Rethinking Social Justice: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite growing calls to advance social justice and address deep-seated inequities and gaps, injustice and oppression continue to be perpetrated in contemporary society. This article attempts to review and understand social justice issues and contribute to discussions to addressing the violence of ongoing colonialism. Given the many meanings and conceptualisations of social justice, this review seeks to find out how concepts of decoloniality can be taken up to rethink and redefine social justice. The review process comprises a systematic search of four academic databases for relevant peer-reviewed literature on the topic. A total of 265 records were identified, of which 38 studies met our eligibility criteria for inclusion. Thematic analysis revealed diverse interpretations and applications of social justice. Findings highlight the need to draw on decolonial perspective for a more nuanced conceptualisation of social justice to tackle racial, social, economic, political, and cognitive injustices. The review calls for further research to deepen the understanding of social justice and to develop strategies that effectively address the complexities of oppression and marginalisation in contemporary multicultural settler-colonial 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 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".