MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1592877248 · doi:10.1353/ff.2007.a224766

Inside Corporate U: Women in the Academy Speak Out (review)

2007· article· en· W1592877248 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNWSA Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceBusinessSociologyMedia studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Inside Corporate U: Women in the Academy Speak Out Barbara Scott Winkler (bio) Inside Corporate U: Women in the Academy Speak Out edited by Marilee Reimer. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Sumach Press, 2004, 312 pp., $26.95 paper. Since the 1980s, universities and colleges have been a site for corporatization. Alternately referring to "commercialization," "McDonaldization," and "privatization," North American academics and activists have noted the impact of the corporate world on higher education, calling attention to the ways research agendas, administrative practices, faculty working conditions, student expectations of schooling, and the definition, purpose, and discourse of the academy have been transformed. Some critics have indicted neoliberalism for converting public colleges and universities into extensions of private enterprise. Others have shown how commodified education exacerbates sexism and other forms of domination affecting racialized, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and working-class academics. Inside Corporate U adds to this literature by focusing on the varied ways in which the corporatization of Canadian universities and colleges affects women faculty, staff, and students. The anthology's breadth is especially helpful to U.S. readers who may not be familiar with the differences, as well as similarities, between higher education in Canada and the United States, including the effects of corporatization on Canada's more federally centralized system of higher education. Topics include the public-private partnership of the federal government with global commercial research priorities, erosion of collegial governance and the resulting conflict between administration and faculty, and gender differences in tenure and promotion. One of the notable effects of corporatization, according to the authors, is the simultaneous increase in non-tenure track and part-time "sessional" or "contract academics" at the same time that women in full-time tenured faculty positions has decreased. According to Linda Joan Paul in her article, "The Untenured Female Academic in the Corporate University," "[t]he largest proportion of women are found in contract academic positions," while making, on average, 85.7 percent of the salary of male faculty. Jane Gordon and Ilya Blum, in their article, "Shifting Programs or Undercutting Equity?" confirm the feminization of contract faculty. Comparing three universities, they note that "University A," whose faculty were predominantly female (64%) compared to the other two, relied in the 1980s on faculty with "low attachment"; by 1990, low-attachment faculty at University A were 100 percent female. Linda Joan Paul notes that women are further penalized by part-time status, juggling family and other work responsibilities, including a "speeded-up" workplace, making it more difficult, if not impossible, to unionize. [End Page 221] While Canada's version of affirmative action, the Federal Contractors Program (FCP), which was implemented in 1987, initially brought small but positive changes in equity, by the 1990s, these changes eroded, according to Carol Agocs, Reem Attieh, and Martin Cooke. As universities and provincial governments began to withdraw their commitment to and funding of "equity practitioners," it became more difficult for women or minority faculty to make progress in the academy as full-time academics. Other articles address the social construction of students' consumerist attitudes, assessment of the effectiveness of "equity practitioners" as changemakers, the routinization of teacher "training" by the Canadian Department of Education's emphasis on test-focused assessment of literacy, assessment of corporatization's effect on women's studies programs, and cooptation of feminist discourse to discipline graduate student "dons" or residence hall assistants. Supervisors use the language of safety and inclusion to depoliticize any feminist disagreement or resistance, while at the same time enforcing traditional gender caretaking roles from women dons, and exempting male dons from similar expectations. The anthology closes with a description of a gender-sensitive approach to technology that encourages student interaction with outside communities, replacing mythologies of student computer sophistication. As author Cynthia Jacqueline Alexander notes, computer-mediated communication does not automatically convey critical knowledge just because it is differently packaged and marketed. Instead, she sees such technologies as one tool in helping students construct knowledge within the context of a liberal arts education. Authors of articles in Inside Corporate U generally address the erosion of academic freedom and equity. Dorothy E. Smith points out in her historical overview that corporate concerns and managerial practices have...

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.272
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.097 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it