Pluralized Knowledge in Critical Human Rights Education Design: Confronting Orthodox Understandings of the Canon, Disciplinarity, and Expertise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Through an exploration of the planning, implementation, assessment, and redesign of an interdisciplinary undergraduate course on human rights, this article provides empirical insight into a range of pedagogical tools that contribute to the aims of critical human rights education (CHRE), including experiential or activist components. With its overall goal of exposing students to plural understandings and operations of power, the course engaged in three distinct practices: regularly bringing ‘the canon’ into conversation with ‘the critical’, challenging norms and power related to disciplinarity, and epistemic challenges to the notion of ‘expertise’. These practices are evidenced throughout the article, drawing on examples of course design, class activities, and student projects conducted with community partners. Analysis of these tools and their impact on student learning in ways that align with the goals of CHRE reveals two important lessons in pedagogical design: holistic planning and braiding. The redevelopment of the course illustrates the importance of paying significant attention to the ways in which different elements of a course are interdependent—challenging ‘sequential’ models of pedagogical design and instead encouraging the metaphor of ‘braiding’ in course design and delivery. These lessons emerge as particularly true in regard to the experiential elements of the course and are important in challenging tensions between the ‘critical’ vs ‘practical’ schools of human rights education. The article concludes with a discussion of the challenges of engaging in CHRE within the confines of higher education 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 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 | 0.065 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.102 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".