The politics of exclusion: an examination of graduate student funding experience in Ontario
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This dissertation examines the funding experiences of graduate students from diverse backgrounds. Data are collected through in-depth interviews with students pursuing Masters and Doctoral studies at three universities in Ontario. The students' experiences are discussed in the context of funding through an examination of various sites and sources, such as scholarships, assistantships, loans and paid employment outside the university. The sample reflected both funded and non-funded students in order to understand how they negotiate graduate studies and the implications for completion and career choice. Although the funding of post-secondary students has been debated at great length, much of this discussion has been focused at the undergraduate level. Graduate education and graduate students have been largely absent from these debates. Furthermore, critical discussion on social differences in Canadian graduate funding remains unaddressed. Employing qualitative methodology, this study analyzes students' experiences at various stages of their graduate studies. The findings indicate that funding is instrumental to students' progress in graduate education. Generally, students secured awards or scholarships consistently were well adjusted within their departments. These students were also more likely to complete within a reasonable time frame, but having scholarships did not necessarily mean that students complete within the required 4-year time frame specified by universities. The study also indicates that the funding provided was wholly inadequate and was a source of stress for most students. Non-funded students, especially racial minorities, working class, females, and single-parents were not only more likely to be under-funded, but they were also more likely to feel marginalized in their department. The findings suggest that graduate funding has multi-dimensional roles with important effects on the student body. Ultimately, these findings relate to issues of equity and access in the allocation of funding resources in graduate studies.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».