Can Gender Equity Be More Equitable?: Promoting an Alternative Frame for Sport Management Research, Education, and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender research in sport management has been dominated by liberal feminist theory, which does little to challenge or alter dominant gendered discourses and power structures within sport organizations. In this paper, the limitations of three existing conceptual frames for understanding gender equity are discussed. A fourth frame is proposed that builds on the work of Ely and Meyerson (2000a), Meyerson and Kolb (2000), and Rao, Stuart, and Kelleher (1999). We argue that the fourth frame, based on poststructural feminist theory, provides an important alternative, addressing the complexities of gender relations in sport organizations through the processes of critique, narrative revision, and experimentation. We extend the fourth frame by considering two additional elements: (a) the intersection of gender with other aspects of diversity and (b) a deconstruction of the traditional discourses that pit gender equity against organizational effectiveness using Bauman’s (2001) concept of moral sensitivity. The implications of the fourth frame are then discussed in relation to sport management teaching, research, and practice.
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 | 0.071 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.102 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".