The every day as sacred: trailing back by the spiritual proof fence in the academy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fifteen racially minoritized faculty from different disciplines, ethnicities and spiritual traditions participated in this qualitative based study which employed a spiritually based epistemological framework. I interviewed these scholars using an open ended format for approximately three to six hours each and collected documents such as life notes, curriculum vitae, published articles and syllabi constructed by participants. I analyzed this sacred data using a combination of theoretical frameworks, including anti-colonial, indigenous knowledge, critical faith-based and sacred subjectivity perspectives. The purpose of my research is to understand how a socially diverse group of spiritually-minded activist scholars integrate their spirituality into their academic activities in the Canadian university context. My primary goal here is to make visible the experiences of spiritually minded academics as they integrate spirituality into academic spaces in the face of hegemonic structures, thus revealing the role of spirituality in social transformation within and outside the academy. I found that spiritually-minded activist scholars were engaging in a spiritual praxis to transgress the norms of the academy in their academic practices. A spiritual praxis (1) encompasses a spiritual worldview, ways of knowing, and a way of being in the every day world; (2) recognizes that being spiritual is a difficult process that involves engaging with and preventing the daily oppression of oneself and others (human and non-humans). This involves recognizing spirituality as the source of healing or as a way of being grounded in a philosophy of possibility; (3) recognizes one's agency has spiritual roots. I examine and provide examples of how a spiritual praxis was operationalized in the context of teaching inside and outside the classroom, in research practices, academic theorization, development of curriculum and assignments, activism within the academy, resisting academic capitalism and individual productivity, and undoing student harassment. I end with a discussion of the scholarly implications of this research, and strategies and recommendations for centring spirituality in the academy.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".