Search results

No matter how dominant a worldview is, there are always other ways of interpreting the world. (Littlebear, 2000, p. 79)

No matter how dominant a worldview is, there are always other ways of interpreting the world. (Littlebear, 2000, p. 79)

These words resonated with me when I first started my career in higher education in Canada 15 years after being a school teacher for much of my young adult life in México. Back then, in Mexico, I took for granted the way in which I lived my values. While there were instances and contexts where those values were challenged, it was not until I moved to Canada that I started redefining and reshaping my worldview, negotiating what was negotiable within me, and fighting to maintain my position in what was not negotiable. I am still learning to navigate the world of postsecondary education where I have learned that, as Siksika Elder Leroy Littlebear (2000) observes, “No one has a pure worldview that is 100 percent Indigenous or Eurocentric; rather, everyone has an integrated mind, a fluxing and ambidextrous consciousness” (p. 85). How then, do I show all of who I am when my position toward Indigenous history, culture, language, and values is informed by my own upbringing and experience and consequently might be perceived as “biased”?

This auto-ethnographic chapter addresses this question by presenting a case study where I reflect on Littlebear's (2000) observations on the fluidity of worldviews and the development of an “ambidextrous consciousness,” and how those principles have allowed me the space to be my authentic self despite the different ontological and axiological orientations I have encountered my work in higher education.

This study analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the electoral mechanism of local education superintendents in South Korea, draws conclusions and makes suggestions for future reforms.

The research method of this study included document analysis and interviews. Document analysis was used to collect and analyze the relevant official documents of education superintendents across countries. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four professors and two superintendents.

The results of the interviews indicate the following: 1) Korean stakeholders are getting more familiar with the direct election of superintendents, as the interviews indicate a more mature direct election system due to previous experience and public officials taking direct election into account; 2) The direct election of superintendents has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages include increasing the participation of the general public in education, and the disadvantages include conflict between the central government and local superintendents belonging to different political parties. However, the current system is likely to be retained; 3) The superintendent systems in various countries differ due to their respective traditions and social contexts. However, the authors can always learn lessons and implications from foreign countries if the authors compare their education systems with their foreign counterparts.

As far research limitations, although this was a small study, it shows the importance of collecting multiple stakeholders' views on the direct election of education superintendents as a basis for future reform of education management.

The Korean system for electing superintendents provides a good model for other countries reflecting on the educational autonomy and accountabilities of their own systems.

The direct election of superintendents provides an example of professionalism, independence and political neutrality in education that other countries can learn from. The separation of general and educational administration in Korea through direct elections protects educational activities from political influence.

In terms of originality/value, this study adds a new perspective to the debate about whether the general public should directly elect education superintendents, as well as to the literature on local education management.

Legislators continue to label Critical Race Theory (CRT) and other race-based concepts as divisive. Nevertheless, CRT, at its core, is committed to radical transformation and addressing issues of race and racism to understand how People of Color are oppressed. Through rhetoric and legislative bans, this current anti-CRT movement uses race-neutral policies and practices to limit and eliminate CRT scholars, especially faculty members, from teaching and researching critical pedagogies and other race-based topics.

Through semi-structured interviews using Critical Race Methodology (CRM), the authors sought to understand how 40 faculty members challenged the dominant narratives presented by administrators through their responses to CRT bans. Additionally, this work aimed to examine how administrators’ responses complicate how faculty make sense of CRT bans.

Findings describe three major themes: (1) how administrators failed to respond to CRT bans, which to faculty indicated their desire to present a neutral stance as the middle ground between faculty and legislators; (2) the type of rhetoric administrators engaged in exemplified authoritarian approaches that upheld status quo narratives about diversity, exposing their inability to stand against oppressive dominant narratives; and (3) institutional leaders’ refusal to address the true threats that faculty members faced reinforced the racialized harm that individuals engaging in CRT work must navigate individually.

This study is one of the few that provide empirical data on this current anti-CRT movement, including problematizing the CRT bans, and how it affects campus constituents such as faculty members.

In light of a need for more critical education about datafication, this paper aims to develop a framework for critical datafication literacy that is grounded in theoretical and empirical research. The framework draws upon existing critical data literacies, an in-depth analysis of three well-established educational approaches – media literacy, the German “(politische) Bildung” and Freirean “critical pedagogy” – and empirical analyses of online educational resources about datafication.

The study interconnects theoretical analyses with an empirical mixed methods investigation that includes expert interviews with creators of online educational resources about datafication and a qualitative survey with educators interested in teaching about data technologies.

The research identified novel findings on the goals of resource creators and educators, such as a focus on empowering and emancipatory approaches, fostering systemic understanding of datafication and encouraging collective action. Such perspectives are rare in existing critical data literacy conceptualisations but show resemblance to traditional education scholarship. This highlights how much can be learnt from practitioners and from these more established educational approaches. Based on these findings, a framework for critical datafication literacy is suggested that aims for systemic understanding of datafication, encouraging critical thinking and enabling learners to make enlightened choices and take different forms of action.

The study is unique in its interconnection of theoretical and empirical research, and it advances previous research by suggesting a grounded framework for critical datafication literacy.