Who cares for carers? How discursive constructions of care work marginalized early childhood educators in Ontario’s 2018 provincial election
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Canadian province of Ontario, the early childhood education and care workforce continues to be undervalued, underpaid and burdened with challenging working conditions. Drawing on Fairclough and Lazar, this study employed a feminist critical discourse analysis to explore the discourses of care work present in the 2018 childcare platforms of three major parties: the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party. This critical discourse analysis provided an opportunity to consider the absence and presence of early childhood education and care discourses in the election platforms, and the consequences this has for the advancement of the workforce. The findings indicate that the early childhood education and care workforce remained largely invisible in the 2018 childcare platforms. When present, educators were often constructed as components of the early childhood education and care system’s stability. In addition, a discourse of ‘maternal care burden’ emerged in some platforms, which initially suggested progressive recognition of the gendered reality of care and care work for women in Ontario. However, the critical discourse analysis illuminates that the maternal-care-burden discourse, while suggesting that mothers are freed to enter the paid workforce, actually reinforces notions of care as women’s work. As well, this discourse further marginalizes the early childhood education and care workforce by downloading one group’s caring responsibilities to a new group of invisible carers – early childhood educators. In light of these findings, the need to disrupt discourses that continue to devalue the early childhood education and care workforce is considered as researchers and advocates seek to assert care labour as an essential public responsibility and a critical concern in political dialogue.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".