It’s “like walking on broken glass”: Pan-Canadian reflections on work–family conflict from psychology women faculty and graduate students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies on work–family conflict amongst university faculty members indicate that women experience significantly more conflict in balancing their dual roles than their male counterparts. Research suggests that female faculty may be disadvantaged because of the norms structuring academic environments, which seemingly accommodate the life courses of men. Interestingly, the experience of work–family conflict for graduate students, who are besieged by many of the same environmental forces as female faculty, has been largely ignored within the scholarly literature. In the present study, qualitative responses regarding work–family conflict from 65 academic women (32 faculty; 33 graduate students) from universities and colleges across Canada were submitted to thematic analysis. Results revealed three interconnected themes: masculine workplace norms, the need to choose between work and family, and consequences of work–family conflict. The findings point to the need for academic institutions to critically examine their cultures surrounding motherhood in an effort to provide hospitable environments for faculty and graduate students who are, or who will become, parents.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.062 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".