Rehabilitation as an ’educational’ project : exploring educators’ perspectives on their practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explores the issue of lifelong learning in the rehabilitation of offenders in the Canadian correctional system. Specifically, the research investigates educators' perspectives: how they understand rehabilitation and their role in the process; what cultural and structural properties exist to either constrain or enable their practice; and their reflexive deliberations as they chart courses of action. The philosophical elements of the research draw on critical realism to articulate a research strategy that includes a rhetorical analysis of select policy documents as well as interviews with ten educators and administrators within the Canadian correctional system. Through a rhetorical analysis, I discuss the persuasive impact of policy and examine how it can both enable and constrain the work of educators in that participants differentially and reflexively deliberated the impingement on their own individual actions. This illumination is critical in my discussion of how people when faced with similar structural and cultural properties adopt multiple courses of action. Drawing on the participant interviews, the findings indicate that structural and cultural conditions such as workplace culture, ideologies, power relations and resources constrain and enable educator practice depending on the participant's assessment of her situation, thus introducing the importance of agential subjectivity. Importantly, the mere existence of these structural and cultural properties do not possess an intrinsic capacity for constraining or enabling; they must be activated by agents in relation to a particular project. Thus, they do not necessarily have the same impact upon the courses of action of the participants - thus, lending credence to a critical realist perspective that structural and cultural forces condition, yet do not determine what participants actually do. These findings highlight the critical importance of the participants' reflexivity in determining what they actually do. Educators shared how they reflexively deliberated how best they could move forward with the collective goal of rehabilitation. Whether through collaboration, dialogue, or specific strategies for learning, these participants demonstrated that despite their involuntary positioning in the correctional system, they actively and purposefully enacted strategies they believed would move the 'rehabilitative project' forward. I argue that a deeper understanding of reflexivity, as discussed in this study, is fundamental to understanding the relationship of adult learning and rehabilitation.
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 | 0.022 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".