Decolonizing perspectives and decolonial pluriversality in management praxis & research: introduction to the special issue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Decolonial and pluriversal perspectives have recently proliferated in organizational studies, challenging predominant Western and Eurocentric knowledge paradigms in management. Offering both a critique of and alternatives to hegemonic perspectives, the articles in the current special issue place front-and-center new possibilities that recognize multiple ways of knowing and organizing, particularly those originating within less visible, marginalized, Indigenous, or minority communities. The studies in this special issue question entrenched Eurocentric norms in management theory by privileging new perspectives that encompass three central and common concepts interwoven across this issue: hybridity, alterity, and affirmativity. These overarching themes reflect a commitment to acknowledging and integrating diverse epistemic traditions following the notion of pluriversality to resist simplistic or monolithic interpretations of human organizing practices. This commitment requires us to advocate for more inclusive publication practices beyond traditional norms to acknowledge the barriers posed by English-dominant publication outlets and standards. The present collection of articles offers an interdisciplinary exploration of decolonial practice and theory alongside a specific drive to diversify and pluralize organizational scholarship. By engaging with marginalized voices globally across contexts and organizational forms, we promote a reflexive and inclusive means to challenge hegemonic practices within academia itself and ultimately encourage organizational scholars to adopt decolonial frameworks that critique and renew management practices worldwide.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".