Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: What does it mean to mobilize queer joy as pedagogy, and how does it manifest in educational projects? Although much scholarship has examined queer pedagogy through critique and resistance, less attention has been paid to joy as a radical and collective mode of learning. In educational contexts marked by systemic violence and exclusion, we think that queer joy might offer a way of reimagining what teaching and learning can feel like. This study situates queer joy as both affective and political—a force that can create sanctuary within and beyond formal education. Objective: The study aims to develop and theorize “queer joy as pedagogy” through arts-based and activist research. Specifically, it explores how collective creative practices can transform experiences of marginalization into moments of affirmation, connection, and resistance. By tracing how joy circulates in queer and trans-led educational projects, the research seeks to contribute to a more expansive understanding of critical and inclusive pedagogy. Research Design: Grounded in participatory visual research methodologies, this study draws on two multiyear projects— Pride/Swell+ and the Queer Sexual Joy Project. Together, these projects engaged over 300 queer and trans participants aged 14 to 50+ years, primarily across Canada. Participants collaborated through art-making, storytelling, and visual activism to articulate experiences of queer joy in everyday and educational life. The resulting archives and artworks serve as both data and pedagogical interventions, illuminating how collective creation fosters belonging and critical reflection. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that queer joy functions not as a retreat from struggle but as an active practice of survival, solidarity, and transformation. By centering creative collaboration, the projects cultivated spaces that disrupted normative hierarchies of who can teach, learn, and feel joy. We argue that queer joy as pedagogy offers educators a framework for cultivating radical inclusivity and critical hope. Ultimately, this work positions joy as a transformative force capable of reshaping educational spaces into more just and liberatory environments.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".