Cold War, chilly climate: Exploring the roots of gendered discourse in organization and management theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior to the mid-1970s, gender was virtually absent from theories of management and organization (OMT), particularly within the North American context. In recent years, four strands of research have brought gender into management theory - gender and organizations, women in management, work-family conflict, and diversity management - but largely in ways that reinforce the masculinist project. With the exception of the more critical gender and organizations approach, gender continues to be discussed in OMT in ways that privilege masculinity and problematize femininity. This is particularly true of the work-family conflict literature and, to a lesser extent, the women in management literature. In this article, we are interested in the root of the gendered discourse within OMT. Through a feminist hermeneutic excavation of the development of modern OMT in post-war USA, we conclude that the continued masculinist project owes much to Cold War discourses of family and work
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".