New Perspectives and Critical Insights from Indigenous Peoples’ Research: A Systematic Review of Indigenous Management and Organization Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous Peoples and contexts have offered valuable insights to enrich management and organization theories and literature. Yet, despite their growing prevalence and impact, these insights have not been compiled and synthesized comprehensively. With this article, we provide a systematic and thorough analysis of Indigenous Management and Organization Studies research published over a 90-year period (1932 – 2021) and synthesize this body of work into a multi-dimensional framework, exploring the various features and methodological considerations of Indigenous research. Our analysis reveals that the literature in the field remains fragmented and dispersed across many different subfields and publication outlets, making it challenging for researchers to aggregate, synthesize, and build upon prior works. Our framework integrates insights into recurrent themes and provides a common language to further advance this vitally important field of research. Keywords: Indigenous; Management; Organization; Literature Review
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 | 0.035 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".