Are kinesiology programs oppressive? a content analysis of Canadian university kinesiology curricula and websites

Abstract

ABSTRACT Institutionalized oppression experienced by marginalized groups is central to post-secondary education and, if left unchallenged, will remain pervasive within academia (Lincoln, Y. S., & Stanley, C. A. (2021). The faces of institutionalized discrimination and systemic oppression in higher education: Uncovering the lived experience of bias and procedural inequity. Qualitative Inquiry, 10778004211026892). Emerging literature that examines discrimination and oppression in kinesiology has focused on the consequences of privileging Western, Eurocentric knowledge and scholarship. (Andrews, D. L., Silk, M., Francombe, J., & Bush, A. (2013). McKinesiology. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 35(5), 335–356; Culp, B. (2016). Social justice and the future of higher education kinesiology. Quest (grand Rapids, Mich), 68(3), 271–283; Douglas, D. D., & Halas, J. M. (2013). The wages of whiteness: Confronting the nature of ivory tower racism and the implications for physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 18(4), 453–474; Joseph, J., & Kriger, D. (2021). Towards a decolonizing kinesiology ethics model. Quest (grand Rapids, Mich), 73(2), 192–208; Nachman, J., Joseph, J., & Fusco, C. (2021). ‘What if what the professor knows is not diverse enough for US?’: whiteness in Canadian kinesiology programs. Sport, Education and Society, 1-14). There is, however, limited research that examines how kinesiology curriculum might enable the reproduction of these processes. Thus, this study explores how knowledge is distributed within Canadian university kinesiology curriculum, and how disciplines, faculty members, and students are represented on program websites. We analyzed eight Canadian university kinesiology websites using summative qualitative content analysis (SQCA) and the Five Faces of Oppression (Young, I. M. (1990). "Five Faces of Oppression,” justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press) framework. Overall, programs reproduce Western, scientific, and positivist approaches as the dominant knowledge, maintain racially homogenous faculty demographics, make rhetorical commitments to EDI, and communicate neoliberalism in mission statements. In doing so, these programs (1) privilege white, heteronormative, lean, and able bodies(2) marginalize the experiences of those who deviate from these identitarian positions, and (3) limit the possibilities for transformation towards inclusive kinesiology in Canada. Recommendations are suggested for how curricula might engage with social justice objectives and challenge oppressive systems.