MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W313022521

Who Controls Canadian Universities? Ethnoracial Origins of Canadian University Administrators and Faculty's Perception of Mistreatment

2004· article· en· W313022521 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
M. Reza Nakhaie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian ethnic studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic Freedom and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterPopulationEthnic groupRepresentation (politics)Political scienceAdministration (probate law)EthnologyHumanitiesSociologyDemographyLawArtPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT/RESUME This paper evaluates the distribution of ethnoracial groups among the top administrators of Canadian universities from 1951 to 2001, as well as faculty perceptions of mistreatment of visible minorities by university administrators. The results suggest that the proportion of presidents, vice-presidents, and deans of British origin has declined, though not as much as has the proportion of the population who are of British origin. French administrative representation has generally been stable, though like those of British origin, their proportionate share of the population has also declined. In contrast, the administrative representation of Europeans of non-charter ethnic origin has increased, while their share of the population has been relatively stable. More importantly, visible minorities are rarely represented in university administration, despite a significant increase in their population share. Not surprisingly, visible minorities perceive members of visible minorities to be mistreated by the administration more than do other groups. Cet article evalue la distribution des groupes ethniques parmi les administrateurs superieurs des universites canadiennes de 1951 a 2001, aussi bien que les perceptions du corps enseignant du mauvais traitement des minorites visibles par les administrateurs universitaires. Les resultats suggerent que la proportion de presidents, de vice-presidents, et de doyens d'origine britannique ait diminue, cependant pas autant que la proportion de la population qui sont d'origine britannique. La representation administrative francaise a generalement ete stable, mais cependant, comme ceux d'origine britannique, leur part proportionnee de la population a egalement diminue. Par contra ste, la representation administrative d'Europeens d'origine ethnique non-charte a augmente, alors que leur part de la population a ete relativement stable. Plus important, les minorites visibles sont rarement representees dans l'administration universitaire, en depit d'une augmentation significative de leur proportion de la population. Pas etonnamment, les minorites visibles percoivent que les membres des minorites visibles sont maltraites par l'administration plus que d'autres groupes. ********** Student bodies at universities are becoming more ethnoracially diverse, as is the Canadian population as a whole. One might expect this diversity to be reproduced among both faculty members and university administration personnel. Evidence in some universities suggests, however, that racial minorities are actually under-represented among university administrators and professors. Charges that racism is rampant in Canadian universities is based on this type of evidence (Ng 1994; Henry and Tator 1994b, 75). These allegations, however, may be premature and/or misguided. A summary of the pertinent research suggests that we have little systematic national information about the ethnoracial representation of Canadian university professors and administrators (see Ogmundson and McLauglin 1992; Henry and Tator 1994b; Nakhaie 1997, 1998). Similarly, there is an empirical void in the literature regarding university professors' perceptions of prejudice and discrimination by administration at the national level, despite much anecdotal evidence. The failure to provide systematic and national evidence regarding these issues is particularly problematic, given the charge of racism directed against Canadian universities (Henry and Tator 1994a) and, more broadly, the lively debate generated by Porter (1965) on ethnic stratification. (1) The most cherished institutional imperative in universities is a commitment to universalism in pursuit of truth. Universalism dictates that recruitment and promotion be based solely on merit. Such an ethos demands that be open to talent, and any restriction on scientific careers other than lack of competence prejudices the furtherance of truth (Merton [1942] 1973, 270-272). …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian ethnic studiesSame topicAcademic Freedom and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207