"Not the Same Story": Conducting Interviews with Queer Community Activists (1)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper I critically reflect upon the process of employing oral history to inform socio-political theory. My own research serves as an example of the strengths and challenges of this approach. Specifically, I will outline the various methodologies I utilized in my doctoral dissertation, discuss the background to the project, and analyze the fieldwork. In this research, I traced the introduction and subsequent defeat of the Ontario New Democratic Party's 1994 Equality Rights Statute Amendment Law (Bill 167), and point towards the implications of the 1999 Supreme Court ruling that Ontario's definition of 'spouse violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The main methodologies I employed are autobiography, discourse analysis, and oral history. Dans cet article, j'offre une reflexion critique de l'utilisation qui est faite de l'histoire orate dans l'elaboration de la theorie socio-politique. Ma propre recherche sert d'exemple des forces et faiblesses de ce genre d'approche. Specifiquement, je soulignerai les diverses methodologies dont je me suis servie dans ma dissertation doctorale, discuterai de l'arriereplan du project, et analyserai le travail effectue sur le terrain. A travers cette enquete, j'ai trace 'introduction et la defaite subsequente du projet de toi 167 introduit par le NPD en 1994, et m'oriente vers les implications de la decision de la cour supreme en 1999 affirmant que la definition d'[much less than] epoux[much greater than] en Ontario viole Ia Charte des droits et libertes, Les methodologies principales que j'ai employees sent l'[much less than] autobiographie[much greater than] critique , 'analyse du discours, et l'histoire orale. Introduction The basis for this paper is my investigation into the introduction and subsequent defeat of the Equality Rights Statute Amendment Law (Bill 167) put forth by the Ontario New Democratic Party in 1994. The main question I explored in my work is whether it is possible (or indeed desirable) to fight for same-sex spousal rights while simultaneously remaining critical of the goals and conception of family operating in this struggle. Queer community organizing is an under-researched area, partly because of the difficulties associated with information gathering. Speaking to those involved in the struggles around same-sex spousal recognition, as I will demonstrate, is a complex enterprise. In this paper I will critically reflect upon the process of employing oral history to inform socio-political theory for the purposes of exploring the rise and fall of Bill 167. My own research will serve as an example of the strengths and challenges of collecting oral narratives from queer community activists. Specifically, I will outline the various methodologies I have utilized, discuss the background to the project, and analyze the fieldwork. Had Bill 167 been enacted, lesbian and gay couples in Ontario would have been subject to the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual common-law couples. Three years later, British Columbia became the first jurisdiction in Canada to entrench thoroughgoing legislative recognition of same-sex partners. (2) And then on May 20, 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 8-1 in the case of M v. H. that Ontario's heterosexual definition of 6 spouse violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While the Conservative provincial government was only ordered to rewrite sections of the Family Law Act pertaining to support payments, this historic decision has wider implications for same-sex spousal rights and responsibilities in this country. Hundreds of laws will likely have to be rewritten in light of this redefinition, and the institution of marriage may be impacted upon. (3) Methodologies To begin with, my voice is woven throughout my work and I use my own experience as a starting point of analysis. Critical autobiography, or life-writing which strives to be non-essentializing, is an important strategy for me, as it both locates me within my writing and strengthens the ties between the personal and the political. …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".