Organisational Justice and Political Agency among Nurses in Public Healthcare Organisations: A Qualitative Study Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurses are rarely treated as equals in the social, professional, clinical, and administrative life of healthcare organisations. The primary objective of this study is to explore nurses' perceptions of organisational justice in public healthcare institutions in Majorca, Balearic Islands, Spain, and to analyse the ways in which they exercise their political agency to challenge the institutional order when it fails to reflect their professional ethos. An ethnomethodological approach using critical discourse analysis will be employed. The main participants will be nurses occupying different roles in healthcare organisations, who will be considered central respondents, and physicians and managers, who will be considered peripheral respondents. Data generation techniques include semi-structured interviews, a sociodemographic questionnaire, and the researcher's field diary. This is one of the first studies to address organisational justice in healthcare organisations from a macrostructural perspective and to explore nurses' political agency. The results of this study have the potential to advance knowledge and to ensure that healthcare organisations are fairer for nurses, and, by extension, for the patients in their care.
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 | 0.039 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".