My research is resistance.

My research interests are shaped by resistance to a culture of complacency, oppression, objectification, and dehumanization - in everyday practices. Through my research, I aim to reduce inequities that are sustained by colonized attitudes and processes. I apply my expert knowledge of theories of cognition, behaviour, and measurement to advance a view of clinical practice and learning as dynamic, context-dependent, and fundamentally shaped by human judgment, social interaction, and the values embedded within our institutions. 

Resistance, in this sense, is not just critique; it is intervention — a commitment to evidence-informed change that confronts attitudes and structures that enable exclusion while claiming fairness.

Across this work, we showed that educational value depends on alignment with purpose and thoughtful use of resources, and that technical optimization cannot be separated from educational intent. We reframed efficiency and effectiveness as value-driven decisions that reveal how educational practices can either reinforce or resist waste, excess, and unexamined norms.

Across this work, we show how standardized approaches can reduce people to categories, variables, and averages, obscuring context, voice, and relational meaning. I highlight how these methods can objectify participants and reinforce systems of knowledge that prioritize control, efficiency, and generalizability over humanity and lived experience.

In this work, I argue that this “everything, all at once” approach overburdens individuals while obscuring the structural and institutional conditions that shape practice. I highlight how the pursuit of comprehensiveness can become a harmful myth that shifts responsibility away from systems and onto learners.

Across this work, we show how inequities are produced and sustained by collective, structural, and cultural conditions, and how dominant models of reasoning privilege certain ways of knowing while excluding others. I advance a shift from individual correction to collective responsibility, positioning change as a structural, relational, and justice-oriented effort.

Across this work, we show how these decisions are shaped by unequal distributions of labor, expectation, and consequence within gendered institutional structures. I reveal how narratives of choice obscure systemic inequities and shift responsibility away from the conditions that produce them.

Across this work, we show that reasoning is inseparable from the cultural, social, and situational conditions in which it occurs, shaping what is noticed, interpreted, and acted upon. I argue that attempts to isolate or standardize reasoning risk misrepresenting expertise and overlooking the conditions that give it meaning.

Across this work, we show how decisions about sample size, reliability, and analytic approach depend on purpose, design, and judgment. I emphasize that methodological rigor is not about following rules, but about aligning analytic choices with the questions, contexts, and values that shape the work.