Exclusionary Structures: A Multi-Method Analysis of Structural Barriers Against University Students with Mental Health Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In dominant Canadian culture presently, it is taken for granted that “psy” professionals (e.g., counsellors, psychologists, psychiatrists) play a central role in the lives of individuals with mental health challenges. Indeed, much of the knowledge about mental illness is created by such professionals, and focuses on treatment and recovery. This focus has been costly, as it situates suffering within the individual, and ignores structural determinants of well-being. This results in structures that are exclusionary and discriminatory towards individuals with mental health challenges, which in turn makes it challenging for such individuals to achieve positions of power to influence knowledge production and systems. Although many forms of stigma exist, structural stigma refers to the policies of institutions and cultural norms within a society that intentionally or unintentionally limit individuals with mental health challenges’ access to various rights, resources and opportunities. In this dissertation, I examined the presence of structural stigma towards individuals with mental health challenges at the University of Victoria in two studies. I used participatory practices, by having current and former University of Victoria students with mental health challenges as members of the research team throughout. In Study 1, current and former University of Victoria students (n = 275) completed a survey of structural barriers they had encountered, and reported on solutions and supports that were helpful. Seven dimensions of barriers were identified: 1) barriers in mental health care, 2) stigma and negative interpersonal interactions, 3) navigation of services barriers, 4) practical support knowledge barriers, 5) financial barriers, 6) learning barriers, and 7) inappropriate mental health services. Four dimensions of barriers specific to University of Victoria’s Centre for Accessible Learning (CAL) were also identified: 1) helpfulness of CAL services, 2) misfit of CAL services, 3) disclosure-related barriers, and 4) CAL administrative barriers. Upon follow-up analyses, these barriers were inequitably distributed, disproportionately impacting marginalized students in various ways. Study 2 consisted of a multi-part World Café focused on barriers related to self-advocacy. Current and former University of Victoria students (n = 21) discussed experiences of self-advocacy and solutions that could improve these barriers in rotating groups. I analyzed the data using thematic analysis, and identified three themes: 1) the structural context of self-advocacy, 2) the relational context of self-advocacy, and 3) rejecting self-advocacy. An additional discussion of short-term recommendations from participants is provided. To close, I reflect on the execution of participatory practices within this dissertation. I also discuss the implications of these results for broader anti-stigma agendas, and argue for community-centered approaches to supporting students with mental health challenges at university. Finally, I discuss the complexities and possibilities of taking action to better support students with mental health challenges at university.
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 | 0.043 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".