Relational and Cultural Impacts on the Work Life of Young Indigenous Men/ Impacts Relationnels et Culturels Sur la Vie Au Travail De Jeunes Hommes Autochtones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employment success and educational attainment are significant issues for the Indigenous1 population of Canada. Statistics Canada figures show that, in the 15-to-24-year-old category, unemployment rates are two to three times higher for Aboriginal people when compared to their non-Aboriginal counterparts, and Aboriginal men face exceptional hardships in the workforce (Statistics Canada, 2006, 2011). Additionally, educational completion rates for Aboriginal people are lower at both the high school and postsecondary levels when compared to the general population (Statistics Canada, 2011). Despite this, Indigenous populations are underrepresented in educational and vocational psychology research and literature, and there is limited understanding of the issues that relate to their career and academic development (Juntunen et al., 2001; Turner et al., 2006). Hoffmann, Jackson, and Smith (2005) state that they are particularly concerned with career development for Native American males, and therefore urge researchers to further explore this area. These concerns have not gone completely unattended; there is a growing body of literature that highlights the numerous strengths and challenges of Indigenous people in Canada (Coverdale, 2011; Merrill, Bruce, & Marlin, 2010).The present article describes our research that explored the supports, challenges, and obstacles that young Indigenous men experienced through their work life pursuits. We begin with our theoretical framework, which draws from relational theory and social constructionist approaches. Following this, we present a brief overview of the demographics and literature related to our topic. We then describe our qualitative study and discuss metathemes and themes identified in the analysis of interviews with eight young Indigenous men.RELATIONAL AND SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKRelational perspectives serve as a metaframework for numerous theories and ways of understanding (Blustein, Schultheiss, & Flum, 2004; Schultheiss, 2007). The framework posits that relationships are central to human functioning, and that interpersonal and intrapersonal struggles reflect natural human strivings for connection, affirmation, support, attachment, and mattering (Schultheiss, 2007). Relationships are part of every person's life; a sense of well-being and safety develops through building and maintaining positive connections (Jordan, 2008). Blustein (2011) noted that people learn about themselves and the world around them through relationships, that there is a sizable overlap between relationships and work, and that work is an inherently relational act embedded in external and internal relational contexts. Individuals are rooted in family, social, and cultural relational contexts; understanding these contexts is necessary for learning about how plans for work are created and implemented (Schultheiss, 2007). Schultheiss put forward four tenets for understanding career development from a relational perspective:(a) the influence of the family as critical to understanding the complexities of vocational development, (b) the psychological experience of work as embedded within relational contexts (e.g., social, familial, and cultural), (c) the interface of work and family life, and (d) relational discourse as a challenge to the cultural script of individualism, (p. 192)Blustein et al. (2004) argued that understanding the connection between interpersonal relationships and the career and work world is necessary for understanding individual and community career concerns. A relational perspective of careers provides a framework for understanding how people comprehend, construct, and act in response to the contemporary working landscape (Blustein et al., 2004). The authors argued that getting closer to individuals' experiences as they reflect on their work and careers provides a deeper understanding of the connection between relationships and work. Further, they suggested that the goal of the relational perspective of careers would be to construct generative discourses that challenge existing traditions of knowledge and suggest new possibilities for practice and policy (Blustein et al. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".