MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2201278037 · doi:10.1177/1045159515594152

Men Learning Through Life (and Men’s Sheds)

2015· article· en· W2201278037 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

VenueAdult Learning · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasculinityGender studiesContext (archaeology)AmbivalenceSociologyDominance (genetics)IdeologyPsychologyPoliticsSocial psychologyPolitical scienceHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Futures column shares insights about men's learning beyond work, based on several decades of research in men's learning in international community contexts, summarized in our recent book, Men Learning Through Life (Golding, Mark, & Foley, 2014). In the final chapter, we ask why men's learning and men's sheds have recently been widely embraced in places like Australia but not in the United States and Canada. In the 1960s and 1970s, Australian masculinity was defined by dominance and athleticism; yet, by the 1990s, Australia led a critical examination of masculinities. Weaver-Hightower (2003) provided clues why this perspective tends not to be heard in the United States. He pointed out that gender studies often exclude the male perspective and take place within an ambivalent culture that feels threatened by a critical look into the traditional masculine role. This point is pertinent to our careful attempts in our book to validate some men's learning places and spaces, such as through men's sheds, within the context of these contradictory ideologies. In Australia and many other developed nations, adult and community education has tended to be a women's sector, where many older men do not feel welcomed: Indeed, some men feel patronized. Veronica McGivney (1999) documented the nature and extent of missing men in adult education and training. She found that although the percentages of men and women involved in education are similar in most developed nations, older men are largely absent. In essence, when learning becomes more discretionary and less hands-on or vocational, many older men tend not to participate. In most developed nations, the overwhelming emphasis of adult education is on vocational training. Very little thought is given to what people, particularly men, want and need to learn to re-create and broaden their identities beyond their working lives. Learning Needs of Older Men Beyond Paid Work Although Schuller and Watson (2009) noted research on gender differences in adult education is scarce, my research suggests that any educational system that operates from a deficit model, treating older men as students, clients, or customers, is at best, insensitive and, at worst, patronizing. Most educational programs do not account for personal, social, and community interests and needs of the learners (including their diverse masculinities). Many adults with limited education or resources cannot find appropriate education programs. Adult education often reinforces inequalities through hierarchies, formal assessment, and work- or market-based approaches. Older people have different learning needs: to cope with new non-working identities, changes in mobility, health, financial, and living arrangements, as well as changes in personal and family relationships. As Schuller and Watson (2009) put it, [T]here can be few more important learning tasks than learning to make sense of the life you have lived (p. 109). While older men have much they need to learn to cope with radical changes as they age, they are much less likely to participate in formal educational programs provided to teach skills. In essence, older men tend to avoid programs that patronize or shame them for their lack of knowledge. Off the shelf vocationally oriented adult education and training programs are often perceived by many older men to be unattractive and totally unsuited to them. When I first naively grazed as a researcher into the area of men's learning, which McGivney accurately describes in the foreword of our book as a minefield, I was assured older men were missing because they were reluctant to learn, and there was nothing they needed to know. Our Australian research shows most men need and want to learn, but not necessarily in formal, cognitive, literary, and decontextualized ways. Older men in Australia generally prefer to learn in familiar places and spaces, working hands-on with regular groups, focused on what they know and can share with other men. …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.268 · 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