The self who meets the other: hospitality, self-Determination, and black refugee students in Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The large number of refugees received in Canada every year and the government’s claims to be supportive to “cultural diversity” do not necessarily mean that Black refugee students feel welcome in their schools. Despite the pervasiveness of racism registered in the literature, the paucity of research focused on the intersectional identity of this particular group of students raises several concerns, especially in light of the white savior myth that is embedded in a white society like Canada. Thus, the main question this research sought to answer was: How do Black refugee students conceptualize hospitality in education? Based on the philosophical construct of the ethic of hospitality (Derrida, 2000a, 2000b; Ruitenberg, 2016), the psychological theory of self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985), and the tenets of critical race theory (Bell, 1979/1995; Crenshaw, 1989; Crenshaw et al., 1995; Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Harris, 1995; Lawrence, 1987/1995), this case study of Manitoba education was designed having individual interviews with Black refugee students, a critical analysis of selected provincial curriculum documents, and a research journal kept throughout the study as its main data sources. Findings reveal how students’ need of autonomy, relatedness, and competency were often threatened by racist (in)actions of teachers and classmates, thus impinging on their experiences of hospitality. The lack of clear and critical conceptualizations about terms such as “welcome” and the deafening silence on matters about race/racism across provincial documents indicate both gaps and obstacles to an education that is genuinely welcoming. Furthermore, especially through the research journal, this study revealed the multifaceted ethical complexities experienced by a white researcher seeking to conduct anti-oppressive research in a foreign land—it revealed the aporia of hospitality. Recommendations for teachers, educational leaders, and researchers are discussed, with the continuous process of self-reflexivity and dismantling white structures as a central concern.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".