An Analysis of Child and Youth Advocacy in 21st Century Contemporary Contexts
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This thesis explores how meanings of the concept of advocacy are produced by organizational structural features; how the concept of advocacy is constructed and related to young people's experiences by provincial and territorial child and youth advocate offices; how concepts of advocacy come to have significance in the lives of advocates and how they negotiate these concepts in their daily routines; and how children's rights are operationalized in practice in advocate offices.A total of 26 participants are included in the study.Through semi-structured interviews, I engage primarily with provincial and territorial child and youth advocates from across Canada as well as international children's commissioners from Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Northern Ireland.Two internationally recognized children's rights advocates are also included in the study.Adopting a qualitative methodology, I draw on organizational theory to make meaning of the data.My research reveals that the concept of advocacy is complex.Effective advocacy centres on challenging and changing decision-making processes by partnering with young people to elevate their perspectives and adopting a rights-based approach to working with children and youth.At the provincial and territorial level, it is important for advocates to navigate the historical, cultural and political factors that inform discourses surrounding childhood as these factors impact the way advocacy is carried out.At the organizational level, collaborative relationships with community organizations, government and interdisciplinary advocate teams help to operationalize rights in advocate offices.Findings point to the importance of thinking critically about the concepts of voice, agency and participation in the context of child and youth advocacy institutions.Understandings about children, voice, agency, participation iii and rights materialize certain groups of children in practice and frequently hinder the viewpoints of young people.Contained within these understandings are processes of exclusion, that may harm some children when considering who gets to have a voice or participate?While the advocates do good things for children, a shift is required in social institutions for children that has a lot to do with a conceptual shift in thinking about these concepts and how advocacy is carried out in 21 st century contexts.Special thanks to my exceptional supervisor, Dr. Dale Spencer.I knew my life was going to change the day you became my supervisor.You have gone above and beyond to support me, encourage me, challenge me, and most importantly, remind me that I can accomplish and achieve anything that I put my mind to.I would not be where I am today without your knowledge and mentorship and I am honoured to have had the privilege to work with a supervisor who cares so deeply about the success and wellbeing of his students.You are an academic wizard and are making a real difference in the lives of graduate students.Thank you to Dr. Melanie Adrian, Dr. Virginia Caputo, and Dr. Stefania Maggi for your helpful feedback, support and
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,023 | 0,020 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».