Are kinesiology programs oppressive? a content analysis of Canadian university kinesiology curricula and websites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Institutionalized oppression experienced by marginalized groups is central to post-secondary education and, if left unchallenged, will remain pervasive within academia (Lincoln, Y. S., & Stanley, C. A. (2021). The faces of institutionalized discrimination and systemic oppression in higher education: Uncovering the lived experience of bias and procedural inequity. Qualitative Inquiry, 10778004211026892). Emerging literature that examines discrimination and oppression in kinesiology has focused on the consequences of privileging Western, Eurocentric knowledge and scholarship. (Andrews, D. L., Silk, M., Francombe, J., & Bush, A. (2013). McKinesiology. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 35(5), 335–356; Culp, B. (2016). Social justice and the future of higher education kinesiology. Quest (grand Rapids, Mich), 68(3), 271–283; Douglas, D. D., & Halas, J. M. (2013). The wages of whiteness: Confronting the nature of ivory tower racism and the implications for physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 18(4), 453–474; Joseph, J., & Kriger, D. (2021). Towards a decolonizing kinesiology ethics model. Quest (grand Rapids, Mich), 73(2), 192–208; Nachman, J., Joseph, J., & Fusco, C. (2021). ‘What if what the professor knows is not diverse enough for US?’: whiteness in Canadian kinesiology programs. Sport, Education and Society, 1-14). There is, however, limited research that examines how kinesiology curriculum might enable the reproduction of these processes. Thus, this study explores how knowledge is distributed within Canadian university kinesiology curriculum, and how disciplines, faculty members, and students are represented on program websites. We analyzed eight Canadian university kinesiology websites using summative qualitative content analysis (SQCA) and the Five Faces of Oppression (Young, I. M. (1990). "Five Faces of Oppression,” justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press) framework. Overall, programs reproduce Western, scientific, and positivist approaches as the dominant knowledge, maintain racially homogenous faculty demographics, make rhetorical commitments to EDI, and communicate neoliberalism in mission statements. In doing so, these programs (1) privilege white, heteronormative, lean, and able bodies(2) marginalize the experiences of those who deviate from these identitarian positions, and (3) limit the possibilities for transformation towards inclusive kinesiology in Canada. Recommendations are suggested for how curricula might engage with social justice objectives and challenge oppressive systems.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".