Emancipatory Management: The Contradiction Between Practice and Discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emancipatory management is a practice based on Habermas’ critical theory characterized by the search for both individual and collective fulfillment. This article presents the findings of a study conducted in two community organizations, one in Bahia (Brazil) the other in Quebec (Canada), that both espoused the values of emancipatory management. We applied a constructivist approach and used Participatory Action Research methodology to analyze how the potentials and the limits of an emancipatory management are influenced by cultural context. Our research revealed that contradictions exist between individual and collective emancipation values and between social discourse and organizational practice. On the one hand, individual autonomy linked to self-interest hindered collective objectives. On the other hand, external social action and discourse aligned with critical ideas of participation, solidarity, and collective well-being were directly opposed to internal practices of inequality, manipulation, and domination. We conclude by discussing how a critical perspective on organizational learning might offer a path toward collectively-created alternative practices.
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 | 0.031 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.091 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".