Exploring Care: A Constructivist Grounded Theory Study of Women’s Experiences of Caring as a Mother and as an Early Childhood Professional in Multiple Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This constructivist grounded theory study explores performances of care in the home and the workplace of 28 women who identify both as mothers and as Early Childhood Professionals (ECP) in Ontario. Examining these women’s lives is valuable to study in order to interrogate how dual roles of mother-ECP influence the decisions and care practices they enact. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were used to answer the primary research question, “How do women who identify as mothers within the Early Childhood Education and Care field navigate the performance of care in personal and professional contexts and at their intersection?” Analysis of the findings showed that women underwent a transformative experience of expanding understanding when they increased the number of roles they occupied from one (parent only or ECP only) to two (mother-ECP). Mother-ECPs defined care quintessentially as meeting needs and explained that their role in the care relationship is best characterized as putting others first. Implications of the present study for expanding pre-service ECEC training, as well as limitations and suggestions for future research, are discussed.
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 | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".