Are the Movement's Organizations Open to the Movement's Members? A Study of Democratic Practices in Women's Groups in Quebec
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article looks at the processes of participation of women's groups in Quebec, for both board/staff and clients, and asks in what ways accessibility, representivity and accountability are applied and achieved. The authors focus on the women who use an organization's services and their inclusion in decision-making practices.In the past thirty years, women's groups in North America have multiplied and developed a tremendous variety of organizational forms. However, within this complex array of structures, little attention has been given to the question of democracy in terms of the place and power of those women who participate in the group's activities or use its services. Despite the attention in the literature given to values of collectivist structures and democratic processes, concretely, feminist practices of small sororial collectives, composed of staff and activists, often supercede practices of open, democratic structures for members. This development is problematic for the women's movement as a whole because, if women's organizations have become the backbone of the women's movement, what do these trends indicate about the accessibility, representivity and accountability of the movement in general?The aim of this article is to raise the question of the place of the users/participants/members of women's groups in the democratic structures of their groups. The terminology is somewhat tricky because women who use a group's services are not necessarily of that group. Our focus is on the women who participate in the groups' activities or who use the groups' services and their relationship to the decision-making structures of the groups. Who ultimately makes the decisions with regard to the group's orientation and action? Do women other than the staff control the group? What women? What do the power relations within the group between staff and participants look like? This article is based on case studies of ten women's groups in Quebec, which were carried out between 1995 and 1998 and which were designed to examine the organizational culture of women's groups in Quebec.(1) In this article, we will look first at how the question of democracy and women's organizations is treated in both the English North American feminist literature and the French Quebec literature. We will then briefly describe the major characteristics of each group in our study and focus on their democratic practices with particular regard to their user-participants or members. From this examination we will be able to draw certain conclusions about the principles held by some of the groups that are fundamental to democratic control of women's groups by their members.Studies on Organizational Practices in Women's GroupsOrganizational practices including democratic practices in women's groups have generally been analyzed from the point of view of the service producers, that is employed staff and sometimes volunteer activists. No matter what their theoretical framework -- resource mobilization theory, social movement theory or organizational theory -- the majority of North American writings on this subject analyze women's organizations from this viewpoint. Many of them address the question of collectivist versus bureaucratic organizations (Ahrens, 1980; Ferguson, 1984; Riger, 1984; Rodriguez, 1988; Rothschild-Whitt, 1979a, 1979b). Others look at the difference between hierarchical and participatory structures (Acker, 1995; Ahrens, 1980; Freeman, 1972; Iannello, 1992; Pennell, 1989; Rodriguez, 1988; Whittier, 1995). However their analyses are based on an understanding that the women affected by these questions, the members of the organization, are the employees and certain volunteers, namely the board members.Indeed, in most of the literature on the organizational practices in women's groups, no clear distinction appears to be made between self-management (worker control), joint management between board and staff, and management by the rank and file, that is, where a board composed largely of participant and elected at a members' assembly have decision-making power concerning important aspects of the group. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».