Spiritual African and Africentric Leadership for Social Justice:Understandings, Experiences and Spiritual Influences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The imprint of spiritual African and Africentric educational leadership is deeply entwined in the struggle over education and educational spaces. Despite this robust and contentious history, research pertaining specifically to spiritual African and Africentric educational leaders is noticeably miniscule within the field of educational leadership. This discrepancy is alarming when one considers how spiritual African and Africentric leaders have been actively involved in shaping the nature and quality of education within various contexts.\nThis dissertation explores the conceptions and experiences of spiritual African and Africentric leaders and the function of spirituality within leaders’ practices toward social justice. Based on qualitative interviews with 10 school- and community-based participants, this research deliberately centres the perspectives of individuals who proclaim the spiritual as a natural and transformative force within their personal and professional lives. Furthermore, the present research study offers an informed understanding of African and Africentric spiritualities within the context of educational leadership for social justice and outlines the meanings, influences and tensions which participants believe to entwine the task of leading. \nThe practice of spiritual African and Africentric leadership arises in opposition to the threat of racialization and against barriers which restrict a more inclusive understanding of education. Narratives construct leadership for social justice as an indigenous and embattled endeavour imbued with tensions, risks and prohibition. Spiritual African and Africentric leaders understand and experience their practice beyond the rudiments of functionality as leaders respectfully enter into the arena of leadership with a concern towards instituting individual, communal and systemic change. Leadership endeavours contest marginalization, initiate inclusive engagement and strategically reconstruct education within a more democratically just space. Moreover, participants depict spiritual African and Africentric leadership as a hopeful and relationally influential undertaking.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".