‘The women are taking over’: Exploring hegemonic masculinities in elementary principalship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the experiences of both male and female principals in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) as they navigate principalship through a gendered lens. Interviews with these principals reveal the presence and impact of hegemonic masculinities on the ability of both male and female principals to lead their schools. These conversations reveal a series of discourses that repeatedly emerged: ‘The women are taking over’; ‘The “detached” male principal’; ‘You’re tough, you can handle it, man’; and ‘I’d rather work for a man’. One would think that the influx of more female principals in the GTA over the past 10 years would inspire positive changes to the role of principal, a role that was largely created by and for men to inhabit. Sadly, this is not the case as both male and female principals continue to uphold hegemony while at the same time struggle under its effects. This article takes the position that principalship provides the potential to create a space where women and men can find agency, a place of resistance that works against the gendered discourses at play in their daily work lives. Unfortunately, it appears that this space does not yet exist, and this article suggests that recognition of the problem is the first step towards finding such a space.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".