ӣ��Ӱ��

Topic

Status Beliefs and Employment Position and Standing as Factors in the Stratification of the Labour of Knowledge Sharing: A Mixed Methods Study of Early Career Academics’ Experiences at Canadian Universities

Department of Curriculum & Instruction

Date & location

• Friday, November 28, 2025

• 9:30 A.M.

• Clearihue Building, Room B017

• Virtual Defence

Reviewers

Supervisory Committee

• Dr. Graham McDonough, Department of Curriculum & Instruction, ӣ��Ӱ�� (Supervisor)

• Dr. Ralf St. Clair, Department of Curriculum & Instruction, UVic (Member)

• Dr. Tatiana Gounko, Department of Educational Psychology & Leadership Studies, UVic (Outside Member) 

External Examiner

• Dr. Amy Metcalfe, Department of Educational Studies, University of British Columbia 

Chair of Oral Examination

• Dr. Carmen Rodriguez de France, Department of Indigenous Education, UVic

   

Abstract

This mixed methods study documents, explores, and theorizes the experiences of 18 early career academics (ECA) at three Canadian universities as they prepare, communicate, apply, or otherwise make accessible the knowledge created within universities, or in other words, carry out the implementation of knowledge sharing (KS). KS from and by universities has been identified as a way to move Canada forward economically as well as to improve social conditions. However, KS efforts do not always achieve their intended efforts, which is highly problematic at a time when we face generation-defining challenges and economic uncertainty. The conceptual framework of this study centers on the observation that the implementation of KS is at its core a matter of labour. This study shows that universities only weakly define KS, rendering the labour of implementing KS largely invisible. At the same time, the segmentation of the academic labour market into primary and secondary jobs has also stratified the labour of KS, and associated labour inequalities are replicated in the KS system currently in place at Canadian universities. Participating ECA reported they highly value opportunities to use more diversified KS approaches and are motivated for their KS to ‘do good’. However, employment standing was found to be the leading factor associated with – and restricting – ECA’s choices in how they carry out KS. Results also reveal the presence of status beliefs about what KS work, carried out by whom, is worthy of merit and material rewards. This indicates that the current KS system is perpetuated by way of underlying biased assumptions about competence associated with certain kinds of KS work. The study offers actionable steps towards better supporting ECA in the implementation of KS, and in turn, to more fully realize the potential value and quality of the labour of KS.