Social Justice and the Gender Politics of Financial Literacy Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis, financial literacy education received increased political attention worldwide as an important policy solution to achieve a variety of ends. Cloaked in the neo-liberal language of value-neutrality, financial literacy education presumes that individuals on a level playing field become "responsible" and "empowered,” motivated and competent to make financial decisions if given certain tacit knowledge. Through its naïveté, this type of financial literacy discourse perpetuates the false impression that choices, decisions and outcomes are the same for all. In this article, we describe the gender politics of contemporary financial literacy discourse, and analyze how it fails to explore women’s experiences in financial arenas by analyzing three popular Canadian financial literacy education curriculum resources designed for use in K-12 classrooms. We describe how these resources fail to acknowledge gender injustice by presenting content through discourses of “choice” and “value neutrality” that fail to critically examine the underlying assumptions crucial to social justice. By ignoring equity issues, these resources perpetuate inequity and marginalization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".