Competing in Inclusive Education: Immigrant Chinese Parental Involvement, Educational System Knowledge, and Parental Agency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental involvement in children’s education often prescribes strategies to align with educational authority. Prevailing perspectives view compliance with educational authority as subjection and its rejection as a form of autonomy. However, there is autonomous parental involvement that accepts educational authority but results in opposite practices. This study, based on interviews with first-generation immigrant Chinese middle-class parents in Canada, provides a nuanced understanding of educational authority and parental agency in a new educational context. These parents strive to acquire and acknowledge the principles of an inclusive educational system, yet paradoxically intensify competition in practice. Findings reveal that the central mismatch between the educational authority to which parents are subordinate and their actual involvement lies in their interpretation of the host society. First-generation Chinese immigrants struggle with mechanisms for selecting social talents and integrating into public life. In this context, these parents leverage class advantages to mitigate ethnic minority disadvantages. Their strategic use of educational knowledge to counteract the pressures of social integration challenges prevailing narratives about normalization. This study demonstrates that parents’ acceptance and subjection to educational authority are intertwined with their agency in ensuring their families’ well-being and securing their children’s futures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".