Experience of Integrating Traditional Mindfulness into Work-life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secular mindfulness has recently been utilized in various work settings in healthcare, education, and training and development to reduce stress, improve efficiency and productivity of professionals, and to teach their patients/clients the skills for relaxation and focus. As this mindfulness is new to research in organizational learning and development, I propose to study pre-existing traditional Buddhist mindfulness to inform the research direction within the critical framework. The central question is ‘How do workers integrate mindfulness into their work-life in an organization?’. Data are drawn from qualitative open-ended semi- structured and conversational interviews with eight workers across work industries who are experienced mindfulness practitioners in the Theravada tradition in Thailand and Canada, and thematically analysed. Findings show that mindfulness has been introduced at work informally by the participants and their colleagues, and non- formally by the management. The employers have introduced mindfulness in mental health and wellness programs for stress reduction, and in work meetings to improve work and life attitudes and focus. These workplace activities are top-down and target all employees while initiatives of individuals are exclusive to interested and like-minded colleagues. Although traditional mindfulness shares the benefits of stress reduction and increased focus with the secular mindfulness research trend, participants’ primary mindfulness insight into work is for spiritual cultivation, particularly understanding their suffering at work and its cessation as another level of problem solving rather than for solving workplace problems. The meaning of work is beyond work performance. Largely, participants’ integration of mindfulness still continues to develop and they wish for better support from the employers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".