MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W294155729

Discriminatory Rationalization: The Equity/Excellence Debate in Canada.

2010· article· en· W294155729 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wendy Joan Robbins

Notice bibliographique

RevueForum on public policy · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueGender Diversity and Inequality
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésExcellenceSociologyGender studiesEmancipationOpposition (politics)BlamePolitical scienceLawPoliticsPsychologySocial psychology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction The history of men's opposition to women's emancipation is more interesting perhaps than story of that emancipation itself, speculated pioneer feminist critic Virginia Woolf back in 1929 in A Room of One's Own (54). And she noted how male professors' treatises about women's inferiority contributed to one of chief sources of patriarchal power, namely, feeling [of a patriarch] that great numbers of people, half human race indeed, are by nature inferior to himself (35). Analyzing men's resistance to women's equality--their self-serving arguments about women's intrinsic lack of aptitude for top-tier scientific research, and blame-the-victim rationalizations about women's professional and personal choices--remains relevant today in trying to understand attitudes and behaviours that produce and maintain gendered hierarchies, including those in postsecondary education. Ongoing biases and discriminatory assumptions that impugn women's intellectual capabilities rather than patriarchal institutional structures persist in twenty-first century North America, as was manifest in inflammatory remarks about in science made by former Harvard president Larry Summers in 2005, and in ongoing controversy surrounding two prestigious Canadian research programs, Canada Research Chairs, established in 2000, and Canada Excellence Research Chairs, established in 2008. Men's (and some male-identified women's) opposition to women's equality in postsecondary education, self-righteously defended with prejudices about women's potentially lowering standard, has a long history; though largely forgotten, this tradition of negative stereotyping of educated still casts a long shadow that chills campus climate. A solid, feminist counter-tradition of research on schemas and effects of bias, which refutes patriarchal assumptions and documents women's achievements, exists, but it remains marginalized. For example, in 1970s, research revealed that stereotypes led people to overrate men's abilities and underrate women's when same academic resume was rated more highly if assigned a man's name (Valian 1999, 127-28). In 1990s, Cecilia Ridgeway explained that such biases create employment inequity by causing people to expect greater competence from than from women, and thus to expect greater rewards to go to than to who are otherwise their equals; biases also lead men, on average, to pay less attention to information that undermines expectations based on gender. A 1997 study of scholarship made in Sweden found that women have to be 2.5 times more productive than in order to get same peer review ratings (Motiuk). Yet gender stereotyping remains a significant problem in twenty-first century. As Donna Shalala et al. (2006) point out, evidence establishes that most people--men and women--hold implicit biases ... most of us carry prejudices of which we are unaware but that nonetheless play a large role in our evaluations of people and their work (3). Thus rationalizations and myths about women's competence or its lack still abound. Most are perpetrated by and a few token (or men in skirts) to defend their privileged turf. As critics point out, the unique role of university is that it sits on supply line for its own workers (Williams and Emerson, 4), so university self-reinforces by groom[ing] certain members for and discouraging others from seeking positions of power (Swartz, 413). Sometimes, sadly, myths about women's lack of merit are internalized by women, which leads to self-doubt, lack of self-confidence (Hill, Corbett, and St. Rose). When measure up to male norms, result may still be feeling like a fraud, also known as imposter syndrome, for participating in patriarchal competition and hierarchy may not accord with feminist principles and values. Many and minorities feel fraudulent since, if they hold more egalitarian views, they may not want to claim to be an authority or an expert; also, they may retain a skeptical outsiders' perspective that those who happen to get high titles and acclaim are not always the best and brightest, as Peggy McIntosh argued in Feeling Like a Fraud (1985). …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,740
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,858

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0530,047
Communication savante0,0170,006
Science ouverte0,0040,010
Intégrité de la recherche0,0140,013
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,087
Tête enseignante GPT0,324
Écart entre enseignants0,238 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueForum on public policyMême sujetGender Diversity and InequalityTravaux en français237 207