Masculinities in Physical Recreation: the (re)production of masculinist discourses in vocational education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Educators have criticised vocational education in Australia and elsewhere for being gendered and classed, thereby not giving those students who choose to undertake this form of study the broadening of opportunities envisioned (e.g., Falk, 1999 Falk, I. 1999. The convergence of vocational and adult education in learning communities. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 23: 697–716. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]; Huws, 2000 Huws, U. 2000. “The changing gender division of labour in the transition to the knowledge society”. In Transition to the knowledge society: policies and strategies for individual participation and learning, Edited by: Rubenson, K. and Schuetze, H. G. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Institute for European Studies. [Google Scholar]; Host & Michelson, 2001 Host, H. and Michelsen, S. 2001. “The new careworker: expanding the apprentice system into new fields of work”. In Gender perspectives on vocational education, Edited by: Gonon, P., Haefeli, K., Heikkinen, A. and Ludwig, I. Bern: Peter Lang. [Google Scholar]). Recently, the Queensland Studies Authority (formally the Queensland Board of Senior Secondary School Studies) implemented the subject Physical Recreation, a new stream of vocational education. The aim of this study was to examine how power operates in two Physical Recreation case study schools using Foucault's techniques of power. Qualitative data were collected using field notes from observations, interviews using partially constructed questions and supplementary materials. The data collected were clustered into key themes addressing masculinities (re)produced by the Physical Recreation teachers and students. The discourses within these themes that position both teachers and students in particular power relationships were deconstructed using Foucault's techniques of power. The paper concludes that Physical Recreation perpetuated a male hierarchy that favoured elite athletes and offered limited educative experiences to the majority of students.1 Dr. Seth Brown undertook this work while he was a PhD student at The University of Queensland.
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 | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".