Living and teaching from our politicised bodies: reflexive dialogue on anti-racist praxis through pedagogies of love and calling-in
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the relational, embodied, and affective dimensions of anti-racist pedagogy through a reflexive dialogue between two racialised educators working within Euro-Western academic institutions in Canada and Sweden. Grounded in our everyday teaching encounters, we examine how our politicised bodies are read, disciplined, and contested in the classroom, and how these dynamics shape our relationships with students, our pedagogical choices, and the emotional labor of anti-racist teaching. Through co-theorizing dialogue as both method and praxis, we reflect on navigating risk, institutional precarity, and racialised expectations, while also practicing love, care, and calling-in as forms of resistance and survivance. Moving beyond individualised accounts of anti-racist teaching, we argue that relational reflexivity can cultivate accountability, collective meaning-making, and transformative learning spaces. This paper contributes to anti-racist praxis by offering grounded insights into how educators negotiate discomfort, vulnerability, and power while fostering healing, solidarity, and liberatory possibilities in the classroom.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.095 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".