MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366998833 · doi:10.22230/ijepl.2023v19n1a1303

How Universities Gaslight EDI&I Initiatives: Mapping Institutional Resistance to Structural Change

2023· article· en· W4366998833 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Megan MacKenzie, Özlem Sensoy, Genevieve Johnson, Nathalie Sinclair, S. Laurel Weldon

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Education Policy and Leadership · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesEquity (law)Inclusion (mineral)Resistance (ecology)SociologySocial scienceLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the visibility of equity, diversity, inclusion, and Indigenization (EDI&I) discourses within large institutions, such as post-secondary institutions, research has chronicled only modest advancements on these stated values. Blocks to advancements in EDI&I stem, in part, from the structural nature of racist and sexist domination, and especially its embeddedness in both formal and informal norms of institutions. Based on a close examination of two EDI&I initiatives in university contexts, and direct experiences of “pushback” against these initiatives, this article conceptualizes institutional gaslighting, whereby universities paradoxically both embrace EDI&I discourse, on the one hand, while simultaneously deploying strategies that prevent dismantling systemic inequalities, on the other. A conceptualization of this dynamic is designed to help others identify and address forms of resistance, especially in settings of high stated value, and ultimately advance these values within large institutions. Résumé Malgré la visibilité de discours sur l’équité, la diversité, l’inclusion et l’indigénisation (EDII) dans de grandes institutions telles que les établissements postsecondaires, la recherche n’a relevé que des progrès modestes dans l’instauration de ces valeurs pourtant prisées. Les entraves à ces progrès ont pour cause le caractère structurel de la domination raciste et sexiste et surtout la persistance de cette domination dans les normes formelles et informelles des institutions. Cet article, en se fondant sur un examen attentif de deux initiatives EDII dans un contexte universitaire ainsi que sur un témoignage direct de résistance contre ces initiatives, décrit le détournement cognitif paradoxal par lequel les universités appuient d’une part les discours sur EDIItout en employant d’autre part des stratégies qui perpétuent les inégalités systémiques. Cet article présente une conceptualisation de cette dynamique afin d’aider les personnes impliquées à identifier et appliquer des moyens de résistance, surtout dans des contextes reconnus comme étant importants, et, au bout du compte, à promouvoir EDII au sein de grandes institutions. Keywords / Mots clés : equity, diversity, inclusion, Indigenization, higher education policy / équité, diversité, inclusion, indigénisation, politiques en enseignement supérieur

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0140.028
Scholarly communication0.0200.013
Open science0.0030.018
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.447
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.040 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Education Policy and LeadershipSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207