Understanding social justice in education: exploring the concept with principals through dilemma analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a critically oriented qualitative interpretivist approach, this research describes how principals conceptualize social justice and social justice dilemmas and how these understandings influence their practices. Focusing on the context of social justice from the perspective of two participant groups of five principals each from public and Catholic schools in a large urban centre in Western Canada, reflective discussions of professional practice occured through two semi-structured qualitative interviews with each participant and a series of three group dialogue sessions. This research is framed within the theories of social constructivism and situated learning as well as the concepts of educational leadership theory, social justice in education, identity and agency of school leaders, and reflective practice. As a contribution to a growing research base, this study offers a process for principals to explore social justice within the complexities and tensions of the dilemmas and decision-making of their practice. Discourse and dilemma analysis were used to render the findings from this study, which highlight normative practices of school leaders as manifested in individual actions focused on relationships and positional agency. However, this conceptualization obscures the power of historical, cultural, and ideological authority that is unconsciously replicated in the norms of schooling. Furthermore, principals see social justice within their own actions but do not connect it with activist aspirations to challenge social inequities. There are theory, practice, professional development, and research implications of this study which emphasize the need for a hybrid model of individual and collective leadership for social justice, hinged on collective curiosity, knowledge building, equity discourses, open cultures, and change visions to challenge the norms and politicization of schools as status-quo enhancing institutions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".