Reenvisioning Family-Supportive Organizations Through a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Perspective: A Review and Research Agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing literature on family-supportive organizations (FSOs) examines work–family supports that organizations provide to employees—informal (e.g., perceptions of supervisor and coworker support, climate) and formal (e.g., policies, including those mandated in national contexts). Yet FSO research remains underintegrated with the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) literature, limiting understanding of how to enhance FSO-related effects. We draw on a DEI perspective to analyze the extent and quality to which core DEI-related constructs are integrated into FSO scholarship. Results from 192 reviewed studies show that diversity (39%) and equality (35%) are the most studied constructs, although there were limitations with their conceptualization by work–family researchers. Other constructs are frequently omitted from studies and, when included, are poorly applied. These include intersectionality (15%), which is often used with a lack of attention to intersecting and multilevel influences; equity (5%), which is confounded with equality; and inclusion (12.5%) and belonging (5%), which are vaguely operationalized. Our thematic review-driven insights emphasize how improved integration of DEI constructs into the FSO literature will drive research that (1) broadens the conceptualization of who needs family support to better reflect an increasingly diverse workforce with intersecting work and family identities; (2) gives greater attention to power, stigma, and marginalization in the context of work–family dynamics; and (3) unpacks causality involving multilevel relationships across DEI and FSO constructs and links these to work–family–supportive leadership. Future research is needed to ensure that all employees experience FSO that neither intentionally nor unintentionally privileges higher-power employee groups over others.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".