A Critical Narrative Inquiry Into the Experiences of Queer, Trans, and Nonbinary Midwifery Service-Users in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Queer, trans, and nonbinary (QTNB) people access midwifery services, yet the literature examining their experiences of midwifery care is limited. This qualitative study, which is framed theoretically by poststructural feminist theory and queer theory, uses critical narrative inquiry methodology to examine the experiences of QTNB midwifery service-users. Drawing on serial interviews with 14 QTNB midwifery service-users, the study offers insights into how QTNB experience, and resist, cisheteronormativity during midwifery care in Ontario. Chapter 1 situates the aims of the study, provides a critical review of the literature, and highlights the role of poststructural feminist theory and queer theory in situating the theoretical orientations of the study. Chapter 2 explicates the study’s research design and methodology, Critical Narrative Inquiry. Chapter 3 conceptualizes and theorizes the ‘leaky boundary’ between midwifery as a queer model of care and the biomedical system within which it is nested. Drawing from boundary scholarship, the tensions between midwifery’s distinct values and biomedical norms are examined, highlighting understudied effects of the leaky boundary on QTNB midwifery service-users. Chapter 4 examines the social effects of the leaky boundary phenomenon when QTNB midwifery service-users access pregnancy surveillance technologies, highlighting how their identities, family building processes, and kinships structures are rendered invisible. Foucauldian governmentality and biomedicalization theory are deployed to examine the complex dynamics at play in biomedicine and the effects on QTNB people who navigate these systems. Chapter 5 showcases midwifery as an exemplar of queer-affirming care, and by employing critical hope theoretical frameworks, examines how this is made possible. Finally, Chapter 6 discusses the study’s substantive, theoretical, and methodological contributions, and contextualizes the dissertation by situating the work within the researcher’s lived experience as a queer midwife and parent.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".