Canadian Physical Education and Kinesiology Unit Mission Statements: Who is Playing by the Rules of the Game?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A mission statement can be understood as a declaration about the basic purpose of an organization. Given the low-consensus discipline of physical education/kinesiology (PEKN), and the limited research on its academic units’ mission statements, the purpose of this research was to investigate the content of these statements and what discourses they assert. To do so, the mission statements of units granting PEKN degrees in Canada were collected by accessing each university’s institutional webpage. Data were analyzed via the hermeneutic circle to inductively identify themes, and through Tinning’s (1997) theory of performance and participation discourses in human movement to deductively analyze discourses. Results revealed that only half of Canadian PEKN units had mission statements. Of those units with mission statements, the content of those statements (i.e., the unit’s stated products, services, and goals; community(ies) served; approach(es) taken; and standards of success) were more similar in their market strategies than in their disciplinary agenda or discourse. Perhaps it is time to shift from battling over participation and performance discourses to a new set of “p” discourses, specifically figuring out how to adopt a pragmatic and principled discourse in PEKN. Units should have pragmatic mission statements that communicate effectively to those inside and outside the university for survival, but should also be principled in that those mission statements must not simply offer what the university or potential students want at a specific moment, but also what will make an important contribution to society in the long-term.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".