Significance: The Theoretical and Practical Value of This Research

The theoretical, methodological, and practical value of this research

---

Research earns its place in the scholarly conversation by contributing something the field lacked and can now use. This page describes what this dissertation contributes, to whom, and why those contributions matter beyond the dissertation itself.

Theoretical Significance

This dissertation makes four original theoretical contributions. Each extends existing scholarship rather than merely applying it. Together they constitute a coherent conceptual architecture for understanding the mechanisms through which the neoliberal university simultaneously recruits and marginalizes international students.

Concept	What It Extends	What It Adds	Theoretical Home
Asymmetrical precarity	Standing’s (2011) precariat; Kezar et al.’s (2019) gig academy	Holds contract faculty and international students in the same analytical frame; reveals the institutional logic that produces both forms of expendability simultaneously	Critical university studies; sociology of education
Malperformative inclusion	Ahmed’s (2012) non-performativity	Extends non-performativity to name institutional actions that actively absorb critique and stabilize extractive conditions, rather than simply failing to produce the change they name	Critical race theory; diversity studies; institutional ethnography
Malperformative aesthetics	Ahmed (2012); Bourdieu’s (1991) symbolic violence	Applies the logic of non-performativity to the spatial and visual register: the university building, lounge, mural, and flag plaza as sites where inclusion is performed for recruitment purposes while the conditions for belonging are withheld	Visual sociology; critical geography; higher education studies
Ghost data	Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) rigour framework; Mazzei’s (2007) inhabited silence	Proposes treating participant withdrawal from research under conditions of precarity as structural evidence rather than methodological attrition; reframes absence as data about the system that produced the conditions making participation impossible	Qualitative methodology; ethics of care in research; participatory action research

Table 1
Original Theoretical Contributions and Their Scholarly Lineages
Note. Full empirical grounding for each contribution will be provided following the doctoral defence. These descriptions represent the theoretical architecture of the concepts as developed through the dissertation.

Methodological Significance

Blended witnessing, the methodology developed for this study, makes a contribution to qualitative research design that extends beyond higher education. It addresses a problem that faces any researcher whose own experience overlaps substantially with the experiences of their participants: how to honour the researcher’s story as analytical data without allowing it to displace or colonize the participants’ testimony.

Existing approaches to this problem tend toward one of two inadequate solutions. The first is the suppression of researcher experience in favour of a false objectivity that pretends the researcher’s positionality has no bearing on what they see. The second is the full integration of researcher and participant experience in a mode that risks what Richardson and St. Pierre (2005) call the collapse of the distinction between data and analysis. Blended witnessing proposes a third path: protective divergence. The researcher’s story and the participants’ stories run on parallel tracks. They resonate and illuminate each other. They remain analytically distinct. The methodology is designed to be replicable in any research context where researcher and participant occupy structurally analogous positions.

The Photovoice component of blended witnessing also advances the application of participatory visual methods in postsecondary educational research. Wang and Burris (1997) developed Photovoice for community health contexts. This study adapts and extends the method for an epistemically complex academic environment in which participants navigate multilingual learning contexts, immigration precarity, and curricula that systematically devalue their prior knowledge. The adaptations made here, including the SHOWeD analytical protocol, the trauma-informed debrief structure, and the visual sovereignty framework, constitute a replicable methodological model for researchers working in similar contexts.

Practical Significance

The practical significance of this research operates at three levels: institutional, policy, and pedagogical.

At the institutional level, the conceptual tools developed here give administrators, equity officers, and institutional researchers a more precise vocabulary for identifying the difference between performative and substantive inclusion. The concepts of malperformative inclusion and malperformative aesthetics allow institutions to audit their own practices with greater analytical rigour: the question shifts from “do we have a diversity policy?” to “do the spatial, financial, and structural conditions of this institution deliver what the policy claims to produce?”

At the policy level, the concept of asymmetrical precarity provides a framework for understanding the 2024 study permit cap as a predictable consequence of a structural dependency that institutions and governments built together and then managed by offloading risk onto the most vulnerable participants in the system. This framework is directly relevant to federal and provincial policymakers developing post-cap recovery strategies.

At the pedagogical level, this research has implications for how faculty teach international students, design assessments, and conceptualize the classroom as a site of either epistemic justice or epistemic harm. The curriculum analysis embedded in this dissertation, particularly the analysis of the business school curriculum as a site of epistemicide (de Sousa Santos, 2014), provides a basis for curriculum review processes at institutions seeking to move from rhetorical to substantive decolonization.

Significance for Participants

Research in this tradition carries obligations beyond the academy. Wilson’s (2008) framework of relational accountability insists that findings must be returned to the communities that generated them. Mertens (2009) argues that transformative research is only fully transformative when it creates conditions for the communities studied to use the knowledge produced on their own behalf.

This dissertation is designed accordingly. This website is the return. The findings are made accessible to participants, to current and future international students at TRU and beyond, and to the public before they are presented at academic venues. The conceptual frameworks developed here, particularly the identification of the time tax, conditional belonging, and the mindset of enough, are offered as tools for making sense of experiences that the dominant institutional vocabulary has systematically failed to name.

Who This Research Is For

Audience	What This Research Offers Them
International students	A vocabulary for naming structural conditions they have experienced but may have lacked the conceptual framework to articulate; validation that their analysis of their own experience is theoretically legitimate
Contract faculty	A framework for understanding their own precarity as structurally analogous to student precarity, and a model for solidarity-based research that honours that connection without flattening the differences
Institutional administrators	Analytical tools for distinguishing performative from substantive inclusion; evidence-based frameworks for equity audit processes
Policymakers	A structural account of the conditions that produced the crisis the 2024 study permit cap was designed to manage; a basis for policy design that addresses causes rather than symptoms
Scholars in critical university studies	New conceptual tools (asymmetrical precarity, malperformative inclusion, ghost data, blended witnessing) with theoretical portability beyond this study’s specific institutional context
Qualitative methodologists	A replicable model for braiding participatory visual inquiry with researcher narrative through protective divergence

Table 2
Intended Audiences and the Value This Research Offers Each
Note. Significance is understood here as the capacity of the research to produce knowledge that those most affected by its subject matter can use.

References

Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Duke University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

de Sousa Santos, B. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Paradigm Publishers.

Kezar, A., DePaola, T., & Scott, D. T. (2019). The gig academy: Mapping labour in the neoliberal university. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

Mazzei, L. A. (2007). Inhabited silence in qualitative research: Putting poststructural theory to work. Peter Lang.

Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. Guilford Press.

Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 959–978). Sage.

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. Bloomsbury Academic.

Wang, C. C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education & Behavior, 24(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819702400309

Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing.