MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7028950985

Inclusion and Diversity in Social Cooperatives in Italy: Where are Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual (LGB) Workers?

2012· article· en· W7028950985 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueUNICA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Cagliari) · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEducation Methods and Technologies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLesbianInclusion (mineral)Sexual orientationDisadvantagedHuman sexualityQueerHomosexualitySocial integrationDiversity (politics)Social exclusion
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Social cooperatives are a form of multi-stakeholders cooperatives well established in Italy where they are legally defined and regulated (L. 381 of 1981). Social cooperatives are established to provide social services either through the social integration of disadvantaged groups through work (type B) or through the provision of social services such as care centres (type A). Our work focuses on social cooperative of type B which target specific categories of disadvantage such as physical and mental disability, drug and alcohol addiction, developmental disorders and problems with the law. A fewer number of cooperatives are specifically targeted at the work integration of women or single mothers but generally they do not include the integration of people on the base of race or sexual orientation.
\nThe lack of policies and state interventions supporting the integration of LGBT into the workplace in Italy supports a general view that one’s sexual orientation is a private matter and that heterosexuality is taken for granted (heteronormativity) and often completely overlooked in everyday interactions in the workplaces. This is corroborated by the limited research on diversity and inclusion issues of LGBT in the workplace. According to Reingardė (2010) the fear of open discrimination, ridicule and violence leads to the silencing of minority sexual identities at work. Gay and lesbian workers often prefer to stay in the closet, with a significant number of them undermining the importance of sexuality at work, thinking of coming out as a very private affair irrelevant to their working life. It is not heterosexuality but rather homosexuality that is seen as problematic in the workplaces. 
\n
\nAs shown by Smith (2005) discrimination against LGBT people can still perpetrates within those not-for-profit organizations that have the social objective of promoting the rights of minority groups. Issues of diversity are rarely taken into account in the conceptualization, definition and role of the voluntary sector and were only very awkwardly recognized in the policy-making process at both sector and government levels in Canada. Similarly, inequality for LGB employees may still persist in gay-friendly work organization, defined as either gay-owned and dedicated to serving the needs of a predominately gay and lesbian clientele, or simply organisations that have an inclusive culture supporting LGB workers (Giuffre’, Dellinger and Williams, 2008). While gay-friendly workplaces are found as largely free from the overt, hostile comments still experienced by many LGB workers, the inequalities faced consist of stereotyping (e.g. questions about their sexuality and sexual practices), sexual harassment (e.g. ‘jokes’ about converting to heterosexuality; feeling of expectation to engage in sexual interactions with LGB customers) and gender discrimination (as involving the devaluation of femininity) (Giuffre’, Dellinger, Williams, 2008). Bell et al. (2011) suggested that the main issue for LGB people within the workplace is “silence”, experienced in two ways: as the need to keep one’s sexual orientation private from colleagues and managers; and as the lack of a voice for those who are out (LGBT issues are underestimated by management who do not provide them with a “voice”).
\nIn acknowledging the variety of experiences concerning equality policies in the public sector in the UK, Colgan and Wright (2011) report that most of the LGB participants in their study experienced an increased confidence at work as a result of sexual orientation regulations and other equality legislation, including the Civil Partnership Act. They would also be more willing to take up a grievance where they felt they had experienced discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
\nIssues of LGBT discrimination are considered the less important among the diversity categories in Italy and are still neglected in policies and legislation. Furthermore we consider social cooperatives particularly interesting organisations in that they have as their mission and, thus the reason to exist, the social integration of minority groups through work. In light of this our research investigates whether social cooperatives do and can play an important role within the labour market in relation to diversity and inclusion practices benefiting all minority groups in general and in particular LGBT people. The paper will present findings emerged from interviews and focus groups with managers and workers within six organisations, part of the largest consortium of social cooperatives in Italy. In addition company documents will also be analysed.

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.

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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,482
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0000,002
Science ouverte0,0000,001
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 Opus0,202
Tête enseignante GPT0,413
Écart entre enseignants0,212 · 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