Queering baccalaureate nursing education in Canada: a survey and qualitative content analysis of curriculum and policy documents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lesbian Bisexual Gay Transgender Intersex and Queer (LBGTIQ, See: Appendix A) \nhealth and wellness data is largely ignored in policy domains. One way to redress \nthe deleterious health effects of institutionalized cisgenderism and heterosexism is \nto train health professionals to be sensitive and knowledgeable about health and \nwellness issues that are known to greatly affect sexually and gender diverse people \n(aka: LBGTIQ). Studies have found that there is no standardization of sex and \nsexuality content in health professional education in North American universities. \nThe present research focuses on the relative inclusion of sexuality and gender \ndiversity health and wellness information in Canadian English language \nbaccalaureate nursing curriculum and curricular policy. This research, informed by \ndocumented health and wellness experiences of LBGTIQ people, situated in the \nacademic discipline of Applied Health Services Research, is a unique critical queer \ntheoretical analysis of survey data and policy texts. The data for this research was \ncollected from a nationwide survey of nursing school administrators in 2013, is \nscaffolded against LBGTIQ health and wellness literature, as well as nursing \neducation policy. Surveys were returned from 17/76 institutions in Canada and the \nresults show that LBGTIQ content in baccalaureate nursing curriculum in Canada is \nnominal, imperfect, and unregulated at best. Faculty were concerned about their \nown personal and professional ability to teach in the area of sexuality and gender \ndiversity and less concerned with curricular policy advocacy in the area. After \nqualitative content analysis was performed on 52 educational policy documents in \nnursing, there revealed a need for inclusive policy development in the area of \nLBGTIQ subjectivities. The research found that while Canadian English language \nbaccalaureate nursing curricular policy allows for an expanded notion of gender \ndiversity that may give space to transgender people, queer, intersex, and other nonheteronormative \nnotions of gender identity, it lacks clear position statements in the \narea of sexuality and gender diversity to be able to achieve inclusion in curriculum. \nThe result is invisibility; haphazard inclusion; ill-defined policy with no directive \nfrom the national, provincial/territorial professional organizations. It was noted that \nthe change in licensing exam might have affected the situation during the course of \nthis research. Several recommendations are lobbied towards structuring LBGTIQ \nhealth and wellness curricular inclusion at the various levels of policy and pedagogy \nin baccalaureate nursing curriculum in Canada and a call for the nursing profession \nto pay attention to the political nature of policy.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".