Making sense of the Latin American “other”: executive women in Argentina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the critical management literature through a fusion of Latin and North American lenses (one author is from Argentina and one from Canada), to question the extant women in management literature, which is rooted in an epistemology that serves to construct the notion of a broad, universal set of expectations of the role of men, women and managers, in which other ethnic groups, in this case men and women from so-called Latin American countries, are taken for granted. Design/methodology/approach – Using a critical sensemaking lens, the paper explores the narratives of female executives in Argentina to help us understand how these women make sense of their careers within a Latin American context and the implications and outcomes of this understanding. The paper's approach involves three interrelated elements – feminist poststructuralism, postcolonialism and critical sensemaking. Findings – The narratives from the Argentinian executives reveals the tension between different cultures and idiosyncrasies among countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico; and that the way to navigate those differences entails understanding and learning about the other. These executive women from Argentina – las jefas – are heard mainly because they represent the managerial identity that multi-national corporations foster in any overseas branch. Research limitations/implications – In terms of the data used in this study, the paper acknowledges that this is an exploratory study that allows us to access women's stories from a pre-existing source. The paper recognizes that the authors are limited by the texts that are secondary sources, and if the authors had been able to conduct the interviews themselves they might have asked different questions. Practical implications – The findings of this research can help organizations to develop and implement a pluriversal and inclusive equity training programme through and awareness of the sensemaking of those involved. Originality/value – The use of a critical framework on postcolonialism, feminism and postructuralism together with critical sensemaking to understand female executives from the South of America.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".