Bringing Indigenous Voices to the Workplace
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract \nI question how Indigenous identity, relationships, and the workplace environment affect an Indigenous employee’s experience in the workplace. I had the pleasure and opportunity of hearing and now sharing the stories of seven Indigenous alumni from the University of Waterloo and Wilfred Laurier University, who live and work in southwestern Ontario. \n\tResearch shows that Indigenous employees are unsatisfied, have a high attrition rate, and lack representation within the workplace (Hsiao, Auld & Ma, 2014; Liao, Chuang, & Joshi, 2008; Racine, 2016; Scott, Heathcote & Gruman, 2011). My research aimed to understand the sources of satisfaction and retention for Indigenous employees within the workplace. To do this, I had conversations about their experiences within the organizations that they work. \nThe themes discussed in the conversations covered cultural identity, workplace relationships, communication, and workplace environment. The first theme surrounding identity comes from my journey surrounding my indigeneity , my changing identity, and the impact it has had on my experience throughout life, in school, and within the workplace. The second theme, communication, comes from the understanding that communication is a part of every organizational process and is related to task performance, job satisfaction, and trust. (Adair, Buchan, Chen, & Liu, 2016). The third theme, relationships, is a big part of the workplace experience for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people (Burgess & Dyer, 2009; Venkataramani, Labianca, & Grosser, 2013). The fourth and final theme, the workplace environment, is taken into consideration as it is another large part of the experience of Indigenous employees within the workplace. \nIn order to have a full understanding of the experience of an Indigenous employee, it was necessary to use Indigenous research methods. I had four relational conversations with each participant that ranged from 45 minutes to an hour in length and took place in the majority of my participant’s workplaces. It was vital that I had a minimum of four conversations to establish a meaningful relationship with my participants. The conversations were recorded, and after speaking with all seven participants, I listened to the recorded conversations, read the transcripts, and created gemstone stories by re-storying what was shared in the conversations with the Indigenous employees. \nAs I began to listen and re-story what I heard through the conversations, a number of themes emerged. To understand and organize all of these themes, I developed what I am calling the Wholistic Organizational Framework modeled on Kathy Absolon’s Wholistic Theory Framework (Absolon, 2010). After placing the themes within the framework, I began to make meaning of everything that came to the surface. \nThrough hearing the Indigenous employees' experiences in the workplace, as a community member, I am hoping that I can share my findings with organizations to create a positive, supportive workplace experience where Indigenous employees thrive, have a sense of belonging, and know that their voices are being heard. As an Indigenous scholar, I hope to contribute to decolonizing, restoring, and revitalizing Indigenous research methods.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,040 | 0,023 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,020 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».