MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W348730682

The Status of Women at Canadian Universities and the Role of Faculty Unions

2010· article· en· W348730682 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aniko Varpalotai

Notice bibliographique

RevueForum on public policy · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Identity and History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEquity (law)Higher educationGender equityPolitical scienceInclusion (mineral)Diversity (politics)SociologyGender studiesLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction Women undergraduates now comprise more than 50% of students at Canadian universities; women academics, however, have yet to achieve employment and pay equity. Between 1987 and 2007 the proportion of full-time women university teachers holding tenured positions had more than doubled to 30%. However, only 20% of Full Professors teaching in Canadian universities are women (CAUT Almanac, 2009-2010; UWOFA, 2006). Currently, 41 universities in Canada have unionized faculty associations; and approximately 18 Faculty Associations have Status of Women and/or Equity committees (Rumelski, 2010). In addition to women who constitute the largest equity seeking group within Canadian universities, the other politically 'designated' equity groups: visible minorities, Aboriginal Canadians and persons with disabilities continue to be significantly under-represented within the Canadian academy. some notable progress in the past decade towards greater diversity, the Canadian academy remains largely white and male. (CAUT, 2010) Various attempts have been made at local, provincial and national levels to improve the representation and inclusion of these 'minorities' throughout the university hierarchy; change has, however, been predictably slow. This article will examine the role and contributions of faculty unions, and status of women committees, in helping women to achieve more equitable status within the Canadian academy. Part I: Slow But Steady.... Many volumes have been dedicated over the years to the status of women--and the place of feminists--within the academy. Some of the North American contributions to this discussion, from various disciplinary and experiential perspectives, include: Academic Women (Bernard, 1964), Coming of Age in Academe: Rekindling Women's hopes and reforming the Academy, (Martin, 2000), Breaking Anonymity: The Chilly Climate for Women Faculty, (The Chilly Collective, 1995), and York Stories: Women in Higher Education, (The York Stories Collective, 2000). Other collections such as: Teachers, Gender & Careers, (Acker, 1989) and Challenging Times: The Women's Movement in Canada and the United States (Backhouse and Flaherty, 1992) include chapters on women in higher education. Related to this discussion there have also been books on employment equity in Canada (Agocs and Burr, 1992) and the evolution of women's studies programs in Canadian universities (Braithwaite, Heald, Luhmann and Rosenberg, 2004). While there is some literature on women and the Canadian union movement (White, 1993; Yates, 2006), there is relatively little written on women and equity in relation to faculty unions. Statistics over the years show slow but steady progress as women make their way into and within Canadian universities. In 2007, the proportion of full-time women faculty grew to 34% (from 28% in 2001). This category includes tenure-track, tenured and limited term (contract) full-time faculty. The growth in women Full Professors in Canada has seen an increase from 15% in 2001 to just over 20% at the time of writing. Despite a series of pay equity studies and adjustments by 2007 the gender salary gap was still 88% across all ranks (UWO, 2009). At the same time there has been a continuing growth in the female student population with 58% at the Bachelor's level; 54% pursuing a Master's degree and 46% engaged in studies at the PhD level. Internationally, in countries sharing comparable university systems the proportion of male/female faculty is remarkably similar. In addition to overall representation, Canadian female faculty members are disproportionately distributed across major disciplines: Education = 49.9%; Fine Arts = 42.2%; Humanities = 41.3%; Health Professions = 39.5%; Social Sciences = 34.9%; Mathematics & Physical Sciences = 15.2%; Engineering & Applied Sciences = 12 % (CAUT Education Review, 2010, p.2). The distribution of women in the teaching ranks across disciplines declines predictably from the traditionally female dominated areas of Education, the Fine Arts and the Humanities, reaching something close to parity within the Health Professions (though even here there are disparities when comparing Nursing with Medicine, for example), and then declining precipitously in the Maths, Physical Sciences and Engineering. …

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)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,879
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,881

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0040,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0320,017
Communication savante0,0130,003
Science ouverte0,0020,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0160,001

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 Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,232
Écart entre enseignants0,225 · 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'étudeObservationnel
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 sujetCanadian Identity and HistoryTravaux en français237 207