Workplace inclusion: A scoping review of the qualitative literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An inclusive workplace culture supports and values the individual and collective work processes of workers from diverse backgrounds. The reality or perception of inclusion or exclusion at work can influence the social functioning, health, and well-being of workers. However, we lack knowledge about the concepts relevant to inclusion at the workplace. Furthermore, research is needed to better understand the drivers and obstacles to workplace inclusion to better promote participation in working life. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review of the qualitative literature identifies the barriers to and facilitators of workplace inclusion. METHODS: Systematic searches of five databases were conducted from 2000 to January 2020. Pairs of reviewers independently screened and reviewed all citations and full-text articles. We used Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework which advances through five stages. Barriers and facilitators of workplace inclusion were categorized relative to a multi-layered conceptualization of workplace inclusion and grouped by theme. Studies were described and thematic results totaled and communicated with evidence tables and conceptual maps. RESULTS: Thirty-nine qualitative studies met our inclusion criteria. All five domains of the multi-layered framework were represented by the reported shared experiences of study participants. Organizational level factors, especially attitudinal barriers were the most reported barriers to workplace inclusion. Facilitators of workplace inclusion focused on employer level factors and most often cited the role of inclusive leadership and support. CONCLUSION: Workplace inclusion requires consideration of societal, organizational, employer, and interpersonal level factors in addition to individual worker characteristics.
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 | 0.109 | 0.202 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.047 | 0.049 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".