Examining the Experiences of Racialized and Indigenous Graduate Students as Emerging Researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we explore the experiences of graduate students as researchers who are Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) in the social sciences and humanities in Canada. This analysis is based on 22 semistructured qualitative interviews with BIPOC students and explores their experiences using critical race theory and an analysis of color-blind racism. The participants in our study narrate four dimensions of experience in relation to being researchers. (1) Supervision: Participants express positive relationships with supervisors who are intellectually open, engaged in critical scholarship, politically engaged, and who recognize the impact of larger forces on BIPOC students’ lives. (2) Funding: Participants describe unequal access to funding and to grant-writing skills development. (3) Self-tokenization: Some participants confront pressures to carry out voyeuristic, deficit-focused research on their own communities. (4) Responsibilities to community: Some participants want authentically to research their own communities, which entails additional responsibilities to avoid reproducing colonial and racist dynamics. Despite the ways in which racism and colonialism shape BIPOC students’ experiences as researchers, participants are clear that they are not victims of the university. Rather, they find meaning in knowledge creation and offer proactive recommendations on how to improve the experiences of BIPOC graduate student researchers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".