Gender Mainstreaming, Women and Politics: A Case for Feminist Adult Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender mainstreaming emerged in the 1990s to challenge normative social and political structures and practices. Training is understood to be central to gender mainstreaming as it provides the knowledge and skills needed to empower women to participate more fully in leadership and governance roles. In this article, I apply these discourses to a study of the nonformal education and informal learning of over 100 women politicians and aspiring politicians in British Columbia (BC). Findings show current non-partisan, integrative processes are valuable but consciously and unconsciously re-enforce the status quo, essentialize and domesticate, falling far short of the transformative aspirations of gender mainstreaming the state. What is required are practices based in the principles of feminist adult education that can challenge the limitations of discourses of equality and meritocracy, render visible biases and stereotyping, destabilize normative political ‘insider’ identities, and tap into the radical activist imaginations so many women brought to the political table.
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 | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.109 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| 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".