Immigrant perceptions of integration in the Canadian workplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper explores integration experiences of immigrants in the Canadian workplace from the perspective of immigrants themselves, focusing on cultural capital and cultural judgments as factors influencing workplace entry, advancement and social integration in an increasingly diverse work environment. Design/methodology/approach An interpretive approach that involved thematic analysis of in-depth interview data was employed. Findings The findings reveal that the official two-way multiculturalism policy of Canada is not reflected in the Canadian workplace and that structural forces of assimilation are evident. Cultural judgments and immigrants' cultural capital create barriers for integration. Research limitations/implications While highlighting important aspects of immigrant experiences within the Canadian workplace, the study findings cannot generate a fully representative theorization of immigrant employment experiences in Canada. Further studies with diverse migrant groups in different parts of the country would shed more light on the issues faced by immigrants. Practical implications The barriers to social integration identified by this study can be largely overcome by improving intercultural skills and cultural intelligence of employers and employees through training and incorporating values of diversity and inclusion into the corporate culture. Social implications The factors that foster and hinder workplace integration identified by this study can inform workplace integration strategies and related policies. Originality/value Much of the literature concerning immigrants' position in Canada address the economic integration and economic well-being of immigrants, focusing on quantitative, macro level analyses of earnings disparity and labor market segmentation. There is a lack of qualitative research that explores the integration process through the lens of immigrants. Informed by the theories of cultural capital, cultural judgment and integration, the study sheds light on the everyday workplace experiences of skilled migrants and perceived barriers to workplace entry, advancement and social integration.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".