Re-thinking the decolonisation of knowledge and dismantling of intellectual imperialism: focusing on epistemic and social justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This introduction discusses the articles in our special issue ‘Decolonising Epistemology’, and derives from them several recommendations for decolonisation: (1) Current decolonisation efforts are mainly led by privileged scholars, when they should be spearheaded by oppressed scholars. Scholars holding privilege should focus on supporting roles. (2) Decolonisation should put dismantling the global power structures erected by colonialism front and centre. (3) Decolonisation should place much greater focus on social justice and activism. (4) Decolonisation should dismantle the global academic power structures that centre the views of the Global North and silence Global South critiques. (5) A focus on epistemic justice may help to highlight intersecting axes of oppression. (6) Is is important to recognise and centre knowledges produced by non-academics. (7) This calls for re-thinking the ways academia currently reviews and evaluates knowledge. (8) There should be a greater focus on how biased, Eurocentric knowledge translates into biased policymaking, which deepens the coloniality of power and facilitates control and exploitation of the Global South. (9) The decolonisation project should place the human and ecological cost of colonisation and neo-colonialism at its centre. Reparations and true social justice for everyone on the planet must be at the heart of decolonisation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".