“My only solution is to work later and sleep less”: exploring the perspectives of parenting in academia in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences of parents who have full professorial positions (in faculties of engineering and nursing) in universities in Ontario, Canada, with a particular focus on the ways in which gender shapes professors' parenting experiences. Design/methodology/approach We employ a case study methodology involving quantitative and qualitative data collected from a survey emailed to full professors in Ontario. Findings Data from the study reveal that numerous strategies, resources (e.g. informal social support networks, supportive partners) and institutional supports (i.e. pausing the tenure clock after child birth) are required to assist academics to meet the extensive demands of their positions, while they perform caregiving responsibilities for their children. Research limitations/implications The protected ground of family status is inconsistently applied in Canadian human rights policy, considerably reducing its transformative potential. Yet, while family status gains greater recognition in rights-based practice, we argue that it be added to forthcoming institutional equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) action plans across post-secondary institutions to better ensure equity for mothers who shoulder significant paid and unpaid work responsibilities. Originality/value While there is literature on parenting in academia, family status is rarely featured as an intersection of interest in EDI research. This article aims to fill this gap.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".