The Experiences of Women Senior Housing Officers in Canadian Universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to ascertain how participants had attained their positions and made meaning of their career progression. Using a narrative inquiry research design and qualitative methodology I explored the experiences of 12 women senior housing officers (SHOs) at 12 Canadian universities, in three provinces (i.e., Ontario, Manitoba, and British Columbia). For the analysis of the findings I used a radical feminist theoretical framework to better understand the experiences of participants (MacKay, 2015; Millett, 1969; Rowland & Klein, 1990). Conducting two sets of interviews with participants and a document analysis on their resumes, LinkedIn profiles, and position descriptions, I used a thematic analysis approach and identified four core themes. The core themes were giving back to community, on-going learning, demonstrating self-confidence, and gender bias. My findings provided insights on the influences and experiences that led participants to become a SHO and retain the position. Findings illustrate that participants make-meaning of their career advancement through reflections on their own motivations for attaining and staying in the role, engaging in ongoing learning opportunities, developing strategies around working through times when they lacked self-confidence, demonstrating self-confidence when not yet fully feeling self-confident, engaging in ongoing learning, and through their persistence during incidents of gender bias and inequality. Findings also highlight that participants experienced incidents of gender bias and inequality through interactions within the context of a patriarchal university environment. This research contributes to Canadian student affairs scholarship related to women in SHO positions, and the findings are intended as considerations for future women aspiring to be SHOs on the challenges ahead and strategies to overcome the challenges. Finally, insight gained from this research raises the consciousness of women SHOs voices, which I hope senior university administrators will note in an effort to create a more inclusive workplace.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".