Invisible and Undervalued: A Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis of Women Coaches’ Emotional Labor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sport organizations heavily depend on traditionally feminine-typed work, such as emotional labor, yet systemic inequalities within these institutions often render such work invisible. Therefore, we conducted semistructured interviews with nine women head coaches at Canadian universities to explore how their construction of emotional labor, at the discursive level, (re)produces and/or challenges broader structures and gendered ideologies in intercollegiate sport organizations. The responses were analyzed sequentially through thematic analysis followed by feminist critical discourse analysis, outlining how women coaches’ discourses of care and of performance in sport render emotional labor, essential yet undervalued, and invisible within organizational structures. While institutions rely on coaches’ emotional labor, coaches received limited reciprocal support and recognition for this work. Findings explicate the gendered power dynamics that render emotional labor invisible within sport institutions while illuminating the difficulties women coaches face. Recommendations for enhancing institutional recognition and support for coaches are provided.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".