Integrating gender expertise into the Canadian Armed Forces: challenges for change agents and culture change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Gender Advisors (GENADs) have played a key role in the efforts of military organizations worldwide to integrate gender perspectives, and culture change, within the defence and security context. Military organizations, however, continue to face challenges in regard to diversity and inclusion, including limited representation of women and other diverse groups who do not fit the white male, masculine stereotype, and subtle and overt expressions of prejudice and stigma towards under-represented and marginalized groups. In such an organizational context, the integration of gender perspectives has faced challenges, and transformative culture change has remained elusive. In particular, the experience of GENADs suggests that there may be unique challenges to serving as "gender experts" within military organizations. This paper, therefore, examines the lived experience of GENADs within the context of military organizations, as illustrated by GENADs in the Canadian Armed Forces. Methods: We consider two qualitative studies on the lived experience of GENADs and focus on the shared theme of legitimacy of gender expertise at both individual and systemic levels. Results: This analysis highlights challenges that gendered power relations may pose for GENADs as individual change agents, and for systemic, transformative culture change, within existing military organizations, while reaffirming the importance of understanding the lived experience of GENADs in their pursuit of more equitable institutional and operational outcomes. Conclusion: Using social-psychological theories of tokenism, we consider more broadly what it means to be the gender person within masculinized military organizations and conclude with reflections on the potential contours of transformative culture change within the military context.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".