Voices from the Margins: Policy Advocacy and Marginalized Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article aims to explore policy advocacy processes facilitated by social service nonprofit organizations (NPOs) using a social justice lens. Qualitative interview results from 39 NPOs from 18 communities provide a deeper understanding of advocacy, revealing that NPOs perceive that policy advocacy is not a discrete phenomenon, that advocacy activity differs in visibility and scale, and that advocacy strategies are clearly informed by NPOs' front-line service delivery work. A typology of policy advocacy showing different advocacy types and their fluid nature is presented. The results also show that marginalized people's involvement varies depending on a diversity of influential conditions. Conclusions and implications focus on social inclusion/exclusion, the varied and fluid nature of policy advocacy, challenges for practitioners, and the complex nature of "advocacy chill." RÉSUMÉ Les organismes sans but lucratif (OSBL) de services sociaux ont pour mission de préserver la santé des communautés au moyen de défense de politiques sociales. Toutefois, peu d'études concrètes au Canada portent sur la nature des processus en cause, en particulier lorsqu'il s'agit de politiques mises en œuvre au sein de collectivités marginalisées. Cet article a pour but d'explorer sous l'angle de la justice sociale la nature des processus défense des politiques tels qu'ils sont pratiqués par les OSBL de services sociaux. Un entretien qualitatif avec 39 OSBL issues de 18 collectivités permet une meilleure compréhension des processus. Les OSBL ne conçoivent pas défense des politiques comme un phénomène discret; les activités qui y sont reliées varient en visibilité et en étendue, et les stratégies employées sont clairement influencées par les services de première ligne qu'offrent les OSBL. Nous proposons une typologie des processus défense des politiques exposant les différents types d'approches et leur nature changeante. Les résultats indiquent que l'engagement des personnes marginalisées varie en fonction d'un certain nombre de facteurs. Les conclusions et les implications de l'étude se concentrent sur l'exclusion/l'inclusion sociale, la nature variée et changeante du processus défense de politiques, les défis auxquels font face les praticiens et la nature complexe de la réticence envers l'élaboration de politiques communément appelée « advocacy chill ».
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 | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".