CAREER EXPERIENCES OF CANADIAN INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY EXECUTIVES: UNDERSTANDING CAREER ADVANCEMENT BARRIERS AND ENABLERS FOR WOMEN AND MEN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case study research compares the career histories of information and communications technology (ICT) executives from across Canada. In three geographic regions: east, central, and west, eight men and eight women participated in semi-structured interviews that explored career experiences, including barriers and enablers to career advancement. Qualitative interview data for the 48 executives was coded in NVivo and analyzed to discover career advancement patterns across regions and gender. Although regional patterns did not emerge, the composite Canadian picture comparing the career experiences of ICT Canadian senior leaders exposes career advancement differences for men and women. No other studies were found that qualitatively explored the career stories of ICT men and women from across Canada. The results of this research revealed 38 career influence themes among Canadian ICT executives categorized according to gender with a national pattern emerging but no substantial unique findings in any of the three regions. Careers were described in a manner consistent with Super’s Life-Career Rainbow model and provided support for Sullivan’s notion of a boundaryless career. A model of barriers and enablers to career advancement was developed. More barriers were encountered by women than men, and barriers were typically attributed to factors external to the individual where enablers were typically intrinsic in nature. Women have consistently been under-represented in the ICT sector (ICTC, 2013, 2016). Achieving gender balance in the ICT sector is widely acknowledged as contributing to improved business results for organizations and improved prosperity for economies (Trauth, Quesenberry, Huang, & McKnight, 2008). The goal of increasing gender balance also has a social justice dimension (Noon, 2007). Insights from this research are proposed to help individuals and organizations in the ICT sector, as well as institutions like universities, industry councils, and governments to advance more women and realize the business and social benefits of gender balance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".