MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1567832938

Are the Movement's Organizations Open to the Movement's Members? A Study of Democratic Practices in Women's Groups in Quebec

2003· article· en· W1567832938 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jennifer Beeman, Nancy Guberman, Danielle Fournier, Lise Gervais, Jocelyne Lamoureux

Notice bibliographique

RevueResources for feminist research · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueSocial Sciences and Governance
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDemocracyAccountabilityFocus groupSociologyPublic relationsEmpowermentPower (physics)Inclusion (mineral)Gender studiesPolitical scienceLawPolitics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Études des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,499
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,010
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,095
Tête enseignante GPT0,433
Écart entre enseignants0,338 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2003
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueResources for feminist researchMême sujetSocial Sciences and GovernanceTravaux en français237 207