Globalization, postcolonial theory, and organizational analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is three‐fold: to extend the scope of postcolonial theory to organizational analysis; to extend the scope of organizational analysis to the study of supranational organizations; and to examine the impact of postcolonial organizational thought on the conception and treatment of the Rwandan people. Design/methodology/approach Organizational (in)action, both prior to and during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, is subjected to postcolonial organizational analysis. Findings It is shown that so‐called global organizational relations are mediated by supranational organizations, such as the United Nations, whose organizational structuring and practices are rooted in imperialist and postcolonial thinking. Research limitations/implications It is recognised that the account of events presents an alternative but partial history of events in Rwanda. Practical implications The response to genocide in Rwanda by the global community represents a challenge to the promise of globalization, which posits that multinational organizational integration based on mutual interest is achievable. Originality/value The paper destablizes the notion of globalization and global cooperation by raising questions about the asymmetrical contexts in which supranational organizations operate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".