MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132968042

Critical theory and the spectacle of the CAAT program review: a Foucauldian discourse analysis

2008· dissertation· W7132968042 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2008
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUniversity Challenges and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyDiscourse analysisCritical discourse analysisProduct (mathematics)Higher educationConversationCritical theoryCivil discourseDiscourse community
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology (CAATs), frequently referred to as the community college system, regularly undergo reviews of the diploma, degree and certificate programs that are offered. This dissertation studies the site of program review as a location for considering language as it is used in higher education, specifically the shift of discourses which originally framed the development of CAATs in Ontario from "access" and "community" to education as product and as driven by economic concerns. The program review offers the researcher a locale for study where many different voices intersect in the consideration of higher education. These voices include faculty, administration, industry and students. The language which is used in program reviews--and which I expand to an understanding of discourse--provides evidence of what we understand education to be in the site-specific location of a program within an Ontario college. The problem identified is the constraint of certain discourses upon our understanding of education in the community college and the absence of other discourses that allow for a fuller conversation about the public role of higher education. Specifically, my understanding of the central problem is twofold: first, education has become viewed as a product of the community college system; second, the neo-liberal ideologies which cause us to consider education as a product also cause us to see people as products of the system. In sum, particular kinds of discourses prevent us from understanding education as serving any purpose other than the fulfillment of economic purposes for the state. Using Foucauldian discourse analysis, this dissertation considers the policies shaping program reviews and the language used by reviewers themselves in a single case study of a program review at an Ontario college. The dominant discourses, informed by Foucault's consideration of the juridico-political, economic and scientific manifestations of historic ideologies are identified. Counterdiscourses are also identified as are discourses "in absentia"--those discourses as manifestations of ideology which become marginalized, disenfranchised, silenced or, more significantly, invisible ("unvoiceable"). Finally, this dissertation identifies the role of "problematization" and emanicipatory research potentials to serve more inclusive program reviews.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.392 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it