Kinesiology Curriculum: Knowledge Regimes, Power, and Critical Pedagogy

Kinesiology Curriculum, Value, and Power Dynamics

• How kinesiology is defined through value and meaning assignment

  • Value is inferred from program design: which courses are mandatory vs elective; elective courses are optional and pursued out of interest.
  • Funding acts as a major source of value: which kinesiology projects or subfields attract capital (money) and therefore shape what is valued and studied.
  • Hiring practices shape knowledge production: from what backgrounds/experiences/leaders we hire; and what demographic backgrounds (gender, socioeconomic status, race, ability, sexuality, sexual orientation) are represented.
  • Knowledge priority: which knowledge is considered most important within kinesiology programs; ties to funding and hiring choices.
  • Three paradigms (positivist, interpretive, critical) frame what counts as knowledge; the most funded/most taught knowledge tends to align with the dominant paradigm.
  • These factors create both historical and contemporary tensions among disciplines within kinesiology.

• Dominant value frameworks in kinesiology programs

  • The dominant knowledge regime is often tied to capital (funding) and curricular emphasis:
  • The type of knowledge that gets the most funding tends to be most represented in coursework.
  • This, in turn, aligns with who is hired and their areas of expertise.
  • Result: three broad disciplinary strands within kinesiology programs:
  • Materialist/science: follows a positivist paradigm (biophysical/biomedical emphasis).
  • Behavioral/psychological: tends to follow an interpretive paradigm.
  • Sociocultural humanities: tends to follow a critical paradigm (not always, but tends toward that).
  • The balance among these disciplines reflects power relations and intersects with external social forces.

• Knowledge and power: interconnectedness with institutions and society

  • Knowledge is intimately tied to power relations, institutions, and social structures, both within and beyond the kinesiology program.
  • Within the faculty, kinesiology sits within a broader Faculty of Health Sciences that comprises seven schools with their own agendas.
  • Beyond the university: federal government funding, private donors, and other stakeholders influence priorities via money.
  • Public funding for universities has declined; tuition often substitutes for funding, shifting education toward workforce-readiness.
  • Implication: if higher education is increasingly oriented to preparing students for work, curricula may emphasize skills seen as marketable and capital-attracting, potentially at the expense of critical or structural education about power and institutions.
  • Ethical reflection: this shift can conflict with the mission of broader education and social critique, prompting reflexive scrutiny of what is taught and why.

• Quick reflection activity from the transcript

  • A quick Google image check of kinesiology programs yielded dominant cues:
  • Keywords: science, hands-on, gyms, anatomy.
  • Visual focus on the body, often depicted in laboratory or clinical settings (treadmills, beds, measurements).
  • Perceived lack of sociocultural imagery to depict non-biophysical knowledge.
  • Some recognition of physiotherapy work and clinical settings.
  • Takeaway: visuals highlight biophysical, objective, lab-based, measurable aspects of kinesiology; less emphasis on sociocultural dimensions.

• Dominant knowledge in kinesiology literature

  • Contemporary literature frequently emphasizes the biophysical body and health determinants within a biomedical model.
  • A hegemonic construction exists of an idealized kinesiology student: lean, able-bodied, athletic.
  • Marginalization in research: individuals from marginalized groups (as students, patients, research participants) are often labeled as underachievers or constrained by bodily potential.
  • Health improvement through behavior change is emphasized: “achieving health by changing behavior” is a common frame.
  • Critical concern: although behavior-change approaches are not inherently false, overreliance on them may obscure structural, cultural, and systemic factors influencing health and participation.
  • Shift toward a critical framework to examine the limitations of a purely behavior-focused approach.

• Glossary: key terms from the critical framework (Young’s five faces of oppression)

  • Oppression: a form of injustice that constrains some groups while benefiting a dominant group.
  • Exploitation: the labor of a marginalized group is used to benefit the dominant group.
  • Marginalization: the experiences and voices of marginalized groups are placed on the periphery or ignored.
  • Powerlessness: attempts to limit agency of marginalized individuals or groups; note that power is bidirectional and not absolute for anyone.
  • Violence: encompasses physical violence, harassment, and discrimination against oppressed groups.
  • Epistemological violence: the marginalization or suppression of alternative ways of knowing beyond the dominant knowledge system.
  • Dehumanization: a preliminary step in extreme violence, where the targeted group is stripped of humanity or legitimacy.
  • Default/normalization: dominant knowledge can become the default standard against which all others are measured, guiding perceptions of what is “normal.”

• Main argument of the study (thesis)

  • Canadian university kinesiology curricula, websites, and publicity reproduce Western scientific and positive approaches as the dominant regime of knowledge, while sociocultural and curricular approaches are positioned on the periphery.
  • This conclusion is derived from a literature-backed interpretation of curricular content and visuals using Young’s five faces of oppression.

• Research method and data (brief overview)

  • Researchers examined eight kinesiology programs in Canada.
  • They downloaded curricular information from program websites and analyzed visuals/promotions to conduct a content analysis.
  • Program selection: eight programs were chosen by aggregating rankings from three reputable sources.
  • Data type: curricular offerings, disciplinary emphases, and visual cues.
  • Note on methodology: content analysis is a qualitative-quantitative blend focusing on how information is presented and what is foregrounded.

• Results: disciplinary breakdowns and interpretations

  • Across the eight programs, the biophysical/biomedical domain dominates in curricular offerings (roughly half or more of courses are biophysical).
  • Anomalies: University of Toronto (U. of Toronto) shows higher emphasis on the behavioral/psychological domain due to internship labeling as “behavioral” in their curriculum; McMaster shows no sociocultural offerings in their program.
  • Interdisciplinary work exists but is not widespread.
  • Overall interpretation: there is an overrepresentation or prioritization of biophysical knowledge.
  • Epistemological marginalization: core curriculum prioritizes Western scientific approaches; sociocultural and historical-power perspectives are peripheral.
  • Cultural imperialism inferred: dominant knowledge frames health and kinesiology while marginalized perspectives (e.g., Black and Indigenous perspectives) are underrepresented or absent in core curriculum.
  • Consequence for students: limited exposure to historically subjugated knowledge systems; potential inability to practice in culturally diverse contexts with depth.

• Results: faculty representation and teaching assignments

  • Data presented as professor ratings across ranks (limited term, assistant, associate, full professor, emeritus, dean level).
  • Limited-term faculty dominate teaching? The slide notes imply limited-term positions are common due to cost and job market dynamics.
  • Gender representation by rank:
  • Women vs men: women appear close to men in limited-term positions, but men predominate in assistant and higher ranks; men hold more associate, professor, emeritus, and dean positions.
  • Racial representation by rank:
  • White professors dominate across ranks; racialized men and racialized women appear in smaller percentages, with representation waning at higher ranks.
  • Key takeaway: there is a lack of representation from equity-deserving groups among kinesiology faculty; racialized professors tend to teach sociocultural programs and may teach materials less familiar to typical kinesiology students, potentially requiring advocacy for the value of their content.
  • Limitation noted: identifying nonbinary status was difficult unless self-identified; this is a data limitation.

• Implications for pedagogy and curriculum

  • The overemphasis on biophysical knowledge reinforces a narrow view of what counts as “kinesiology.”
  • Sociocultural perspectives are marginalized, limiting students’ ability to work effectively with diverse populations and to understand broader social determinants of health.
  • Underrepresentation of equity-deserving groups among faculty may reduce exposure to diverse lived experiences and scholarly contributions.
  • The tendency to portray idealized bodies (lean, athletic) contributes to cultural imperialism and may perpetuate stereotypes about who can participate in kinesiology disciplines.
  • Epistemological violence is a risk when alternative knowledges are devalued or dismissed.

• Proposed and implemented responses within the program

  • Diversifying the curriculum: development of new courses that foreground sociocultural knowledge and diverse cultural perspectives.
  • Ensuring representation in readings and course content: including scholars from historically marginalized groups and ensuring multiple cultural viewpoints.
  • Diversifying hiring practices: explicit goals to diversify lived experiences and scholarly backgrounds within kinesiology faculty; introduction of faculty from areas like biomechanics and exercise physiology who come from varied backgrounds.
  • Rationale: future professionals will work with diverse populations; critical thinking skills are essential for navigating ethical care, programming, and research with respect and justice.
  • The course in question (newly added) was designed to ensure foundational knowledge in sociocultural dimensions of health and sport.

• Practical guidance for students: reflexivity and action

  • Students should bring their own experiences to courses and examine how those experiences may be historically privileged or disadvantaged.
  • Acknowledging privilege helps students become reflexive practitioners who can advocate for spaces and voices historically marginalized in academia and practice.
  • Students should consider how to leverage their own positions (the so-called “triple h”) to create more inclusive spaces in classrooms, research, and professional settings.
  • Recognize systemic pressures to be productive and to attract capital; balance this with commitments to equity and social justice.
  • The instructor emphasizes developing critical thinking to navigate patient/community contexts ethically, whether in clinical care, sport programming, or laboratory work.

• Actions for ongoing improvement

  • Continual diversification of curriculum, readings, and course offerings to reflect multiple cultures and knowledge systems.
  • Ongoing diversification of faculty hiring to improve representation of equity-deserving groups and bring varied expertise into biomechanics, exercise physiology, and related fields.
  • Institutional reflexivity: acknowledge the tension between market pressures (capital, jobs, funding) and justice-oriented educational goals; work toward a balanced approach that prepares students for workforce needs while preserving critical literacy about power structures.
  • Encourage students to practice reflexivity in every course and to work toward inclusive research and practice environments.

• Engagement snippet: classroom discussion and social context

  • Students discussed the imagery associated with kinesiology programs and how these visuals reflect a biophysical, clinical, and body-centered lens.
  • The discussion highlighted the challenge of visually presenting sociocultural curricula or behaviors in program graphics.
  • The instructor connected visuals to broader patterns in curriculum and knowledge production, emphasizing the need to broaden representations.

• Summary of core themes and takeaways

  • Kinesiology programs are shaped by funding, hiring, and curricular decisions, which tend to privilege biophysical, Western scientific knowledge.
  • This privileging creates epistemological marginalization of sociocultural perspectives and other knowledges, a form of cultural imperialism within the discipline.
  • There is a notable underrepresentation of equity-deserving groups among faculty, particularly at higher ranks, with implications for teaching and scholarship.
  • Critical frameworks (e.g., Young’s five faces of oppression) help illuminate how power, exclusion, and violence (including epistemological violence) operate within academic programs.
  • Practical responses include curriculum diversification, inclusive hiring practices, and fostering reflexivity among students and faculty to build more just and effective kinesiology education and practice.

• Quick logistics from the session

  • A quiz was announced to open at 09:20 AM, with questions displayed simultaneously and not timed during the session.
  • The discussion encouraged ongoing engagement with questions and critical thinking about the topics discussed.