Exploring the Underrepresentation of Women Coaches in Canadian University Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, there are disproportionally few women who hold coaching positions within Canadian university sport. To investigate the gender gap, this dissertation explores the institutional practices that inform women coaches’ working realities. Applying Smith’s (1987) institutional ethnography as a mode of inquiry directed the exploration towards the everyday practices and processes that inform experience, to better understand current barriers and supports in place. In this study, particular attention is given to social relations, which Smith (2005) calls the relations of ruling that coordinate activities and experiences of individuals within organizations. Institutional ethnography aims to explicate these relations of ruling by exploring individuals’ everyday work practices, which was done through interviews with current women coaches at a Canadian university. Additionally, two university sport gender equity policies (Actively Engaged: A Policy on Sport for Women and Girls and the U Sports Equity Policy), and women coaches' work schedules were analyzed. The findings illuminate women coaches’ daily activities within the university and how the relations of ruling coordinate these realities. It was revealed that hegemonic masculine ideals shape women coaches’ daily realities within the university. For example, the challenge of achieving work-life balance, and women coaches’ participating in unseen and unrecognized work. This research illuminates the complexity of women coaches’ daily activities, and challenges Canadian university sport to do things differently. Recommendations based on the research findings include community building, coaching education that reflects current working realities, and action-based gender equity policies. By listening to the experiences of women coaches’ and mapping out the relations of ruling that informs their daily lives, this research has challenged the taken-for-granted practices and processes within university sport, calling for a more nuanced understanding of women’s work in coaching.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".