Power relations and context: how university student mentors navigate the mentor-mentee relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is a qualitative case study that investigates a small number of mentoring relationships between volunteer mentors (university students) and mentees (elementary school children) in a program for students deemed to be 'at risk' of dropping out of school.Responding to a growing scholarly critique that contends that much literature on mentoring relationships is frequently disconnected from attending to power and contexts in which they are located, this study analyses mentoring relationships at individual, institutional and structural levels.First, the study uses Foucauldian discourse analysis to expose power struggles between competing neoliberal and social justice discourses that manifest themselves in a variety of practices, events and strategies that can be found in the program.Then, this study offers insight into ways that mentors navigate dyadic mentoring relationships.It seeks to explore how they perpetuated and exercised their agency to resist ambiguous or contradictory impositions from the program on them, their mentees and the mentor-mentee relationship as a result of power struggles.The data consist of semi-structured interviews with the program staff and mentors and analysis of program and policy documents explicitly identified in these interviews.This study is expected to contribute to better understanding mentor-mentee power dynamics that have been acknowledged as being far more complex in the theoretical research on mentoring and to help inform further studies on this topic. RsumCette mmoire est une tude de cas qualitative qui examine un petit nombre de relations de mentorat entre des mentors bnvoles (tudiants universitaires) et des mentors (enfants du primaire) dans un programme destin aux tudiants considrs comme " risque" de dcrochage scolaire.En rponse une critique de plus en plus rpandue dans les milieux universitaires, qui soutient que la plupart des documents sur les relations de mentorat sont souvent dconnects du contexte dans lequel ils se trouvent, cette tude analyse les relations de mentorat aux niveaux individuel, institutionnel et structurel.Tout d'abord, l'tude utilise l'analyse du discours foucaldien pour exposer les luttes de pouvoir entre les discours nolibraux et de justice sociale concurrents qui se manifestent dans une varit de pratiques, d'vnements et de stratgies que l'on peut trouver dans le programme.Ensuite, cette tude offre un aperu des faons dont les mentors naviguent dans les relations dyadiques de mentorat.Elle cherche explorer comment ils perptuent et exercent leur action pour rsister aux impositions ambigus ou contradictoires du programme sur eux, leurs mentors et la relation mentor-mentor la suite de luttes de pouvoir.Les donnes consistent en des entretiens semi-structurs avec le personnel du programme et les mentors et en une analyse des documents du programme et des politiques explicitement identifies dans les entretiens.Cette tude devrait contribuer une meilleure comprhension de la dynamique du pouvoir entre le mentor et le mentor, reconnue comme tant beaucoup plus complexe dans la recherche thorique sur le mentorat, et aider informer d'autres tudes sur ce sujet.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".