Queering and Trans-gressing Care: Towards a Queer Ethic of Care in QTBIPOC Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research details the findings from three interviews with QTBIPOC educators in Ontario. Using qualitative interviews and art-based responses, teachers in this study theorized about a queer ethic of care while offering their best practices to illustrate how they move from theory to pedagogy when working with QTBIPOC youth. This research asked the following questions: How do QTBIPOC educators understand and practice a queer ethic of care? Two findings emerged from this study: (1) a queer ethic of care is nuanced and expansive, disruptive and transgressive and an individualized practice that takes place within a care web and (2) care as it exists in schools right now, is inherently white, colonial and violent and has forced QTBIPOC educators to imagine new forms of care practices. These disruptive practices include creating (1) authentic, fluid, mutually vulnerable relationships with students (2) explicitly anticolonial, antiracist moments in their teaching and interactions with students and (3) affirmation and recognition as moments of healing. Collectively, these disruptive and transgressive practices create space for mutual healing for both queer and trans racialized students and teachers and paves the way for queer futurity and thriving. The findings from this study indicate a few things: educators must continually reimagine and disrupt their knowledge of care and care practices that are built upon white, colonial, cisheteronormative assumptions; educators must engage in anticolonial and antiracist care practices that are trans-gressive to the understandings of care in schools; teachers must learn how to create care webs in community with their students in ways that are vulnerable, authentic and fluid; a queer ethic of care is possible to implement at the grassroots, individual level first, but must move towards systemic practices in order to be sustainable and effective for QTBIPOC students in the long term; and a queer ethic of care offers a way for QTBIPOC teachers and students to feel recognition, affirmation and mutually heal by imagining new futures through thriving, joyful care.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".