Author: mackenzie cameron

With special consideration to the transgender community, disabled students, international students and aboriginal students, we examined several webpages from the UBC site, attempting to determine weather these communities within the UBC student body are well represented.  The representation of these groups or lack thereof in turn speaks to the opportunities which are available to them in the university setting.

My own group analyzed the Collegia Advisor webpage to determine if it was inclusive to the transgender community.  Inclusive or exclusive language was the main criteria which we used to determine how well-representing the webpage was.  For example, pronouns which only addressed one gender binary would be evidence of exclusive language.  Although the text of the webpage was neutral in terms of language and pronouns, the header image for the page was not.  The description for the image was “man and woman conversation” which clearly depicts a gender binary, and doesn’t represent individuals who don’t identify with such.  The description also implied that the man and woman in the image were characteristically male and female, insinuating there is a way to tell if one is male or female, and in turn if they are not.  Consequentially, a stereotype is implied about individuals who identify as transgender.  The other group who focused on the representation of the transgender community found similar implications with the image on their page, and suggested more androgynous-looking individuals, which I believe is a suggestion which applies to the page examined by my group as well.

A common theme throughout several of the presentations was that although the idea of Universal Design in terms of creating a framework which encompasses and represents a wide range of people is appealing, it may not be realistic in all scenarios.  For example, it’s difficult, if not impossible to create an all-representing, all-inclusive design for the disabled community, because there are a wide range of both mental and physical disabilities.  In this situation, it may make more sense to cater to each individual disability, as opposed to attempting to create a general, less specific framework to encompass all disabilities into one.

Beyond this, the very basis upon which Universal Design rests creates a paradox, as one of the members in my group, Joyce, mentioned.  By attempting to be inclusive with a design and ideology which represents a wide range of communities in an institution such as UBC, you end up, by default, having to create separation between groups.  In analyzing the Collegia Advisor webpage, as my group was assigned, through a transgender lens, this paradox became incredibly evident.  We found ourselves asking, “What is a ‘transgender lens’?”, and realizing that the very concept of analyzing the webpage in such a way made it almost necessary to stereotype the transgender community and create an “us” and a “them”.

The general consensus from the presentations as well as myself and my group’s analysis of the Collegia Advisor webpage demonstrates that there are not equal opportunities for all students at UBC.  Not only are there aspects of the webpages which we looked at that were exclusive in their language, visuals, text size and the like, the very concept of Universal Design which we used to judge how well-representing these webpages were, is not necessarily inclusive itself.

Similarly to my peers, my network map clearly depicts two distinct groups. The larger of the two contains high school friends, family, and all other people I know through my experiences prior to coming to Vancouver.   The other is smaller, yet is a much more tightly knit friend group, and consists of those whom I have become closest with since moving here.  Both vary in nature, arguably because of various influencing factors which were relevant at the time which the network was being formed.  The people within our networks are greatly related to the environment as well as the context in which we live.

The part of my network map which corresponds to my network back home in Toronto displays mostly weak ties.  For the majority within this group, I am the connection.  That is to say, many know each other because of me; I am the mutual friend.  Consequentially, weak ties exist between many of my close friends because they have only met a handful of times at my birthday parties or other friend gatherings over the years.  It’s also notable that within this larger group which makes up my network, there are sub-networks.  Strong ties exist between those who went to high school together and between family members, for example.

Interestingly, those who I have met in the University setting here in Vancouver, and stayed close with are all from the GTA (Greater Toronto Area).  In other words, we all come form the same geographic location.  However, although we all met through the same institution, and come from the same geographic area, we all come from various ethnic backgrounds.  I, like the others within this group, consider myself Canadian, however I come from mainly German and Scottish roots.  Within the group are two Filipinos, an Iraqi and a Chinese-mixed Persian.  While this variety in ethnicity hints at a small-scale example of the theory of globalization, the similarities in geographic origin and context points to the homophily principle in an unconventional way.  Especially considering we had all just moved to a new city, where, for the first time, we would be living on our own, it isn’t surprising that the friends we became closest with were all from the same general area (Toronto and surrounding cities).  This sharing of origin – although not necessarily ethnic or socio-economic, as the homophily principle suggests – offers a sense of familiarity in a very unfamiliar context and place.

My main focus has been the qualitative awareness I have gained with respect to my network, through the network map, however the E.I. index offered important insight into my network which I won’t overlook.  After calculating homophily for each attribute, it immediately became clear that the gender value calculated was a very negative value, indicating that in terms of gender, my network is homophilous in nature.  In other words, almost all of those within my closest circle of friends are female.  This is not surprising, as, again, the homophily principle states that we associate ourselves with those who are most similar to us by way of being able to relate more easily to each other.