Creating Still Waters: Calming Colonizing Undercurrents in Higher Education Curricula Through Cross-Epistemic Dialogue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-secondary institutions in Canada face an urgent need to advance reconciliation through pedagogical practices that respect diverse epistemologies and dismantle colonial structures. This study explores the Role of Practitioners in Indigenous Wellness (RPIW) learning program at the University of Saskatchewan as a model of cross-epistemic collaboration leading to reconciliation education programming. Developed in collaboration with Indigenous communities, Elders, health providers, scholars and community members, the RPIW program integrates Indigenous pedagogies and the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations’ Cultural Responsiveness Framework to foster culturally responsive health professional education. Using a cross-epistemic methodological approach grounded in Ermine’s (2007) concept of “ethical space,” the research examines the relationships, commitments and fundamental truths that sustain this program. Data were collected through conversations with Core Developers of the RPIW learning program to understand how ethical spaces are created and nurtured. Findings explore a web of emergent themes that together generate foundations of ethical relationships. The themes are organized under five headings: humility and acknowledgement of gift of knowledge; strength, patience, resoluteness; reciprocal learning, circle process, growth; trust, safe space, and dismantling hierarchies; and shared vision, common values, and reaffirmed solidarity. Findings highlight themes of humility, resoluteness, reciprocal learning, reaffirmed solidarity, and trust as foundational to creating reconciliative educational environments. This case offers insights for institutions seeking to implement reconciliation-focused curriculum initiatives that honor Indigenous sovereignty, voice, and promote epistemic justice.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".