"My Wife Says...": Epistemic Injustice in the Rationale of Parenting Responsibilities Among Academic Parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The event of having a child for an academic is associated with lower research productivity for women, even when the parenting burden is shared by both male and female parents. Universities and research organizations commonly employ “family‐friendly” policies to simultaneously ease work expectations and provide flexibility in work patterns, performance, and participation. Recent trends of fathers taking more responsibility for parenting engagement than past generations have challenged universities to adopt a greater diversity of family‐friendly policy approaches to ensure maximum workforce participation. However, such policies have done little to ameliorate that increased harm on academic careers, especially women's. Using a global survey of 10,445 academic parents, this study analyzes 5903 free‐text, qualitative responses to explore individualized rationales of how a parenting “unit” functions at the household level. By examining the gaps and silences in the testimonies of parents, this study concentrates on the gendered nature of parental rationales and the power imbalances and assumptions made around a partner's conceptualization of choice in parenting. The findings show that differing notions of parental workplace flexibility are used to reinforce gendered concepts of care at the household level. This undermines policy goals of helping parents in the workplace, especially if the policies are used to nudge mothers to disengage from work.
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 | 0.014 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".