A feminist analysis of educational policies related to gender equity: policy framing of gender equity in Manitoba education from 1975 to 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study’s purpose was to examine the conceptualizations of gender equity within select Manitoba administrative policy documents related to education and the ways those conceptualizations shaped the framing of gender equity in those texts. I used feminist content analysis and critical frame analysis to examine how the discourses around gender equity change between 1975 and 2012. I used purposive selection criteria for primary document selection. This study used a directed content analysis approach (Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999) that allowed use of both a priori and open coding. The a priori codes originated from the concepts highlighted in the review of the literature. Using critical frame analysis, three main frames emerged from my analysis of the annual reports that related to how the gender and equity terms appeared. These frames included (a) whether the term specifically related to gender, but not equity; equity, but not gender; or gender equity, (b) the educational arena to which the term applied; and, (c) the context in which the term was included. Finer-grained analysis of those three frames revealed two eras. The first era took place from 1975 to 1990 and reflected a time when policy attention was directed towards gender equity generally framed around the equity concerns of women and girls. The second era took place from 1991 to 2012 and reflected a time when policy attention was directed towards equity, but generally not towards gender. A feminist analysis of gender equity policy relevant texts was important to the Manitoba context because of the resurgence of gender equity as an important topic. While it is important that there is a resurgence, until policy takes aim at the socially constructed and embedded values presumed in any conceptualization of gender inequality, it is unlikely that any policy changes, sweeping or not, will affect meaningful disruptions to the gendered nature of our educational systems.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".