Appropriation or Disappropriation: A Ventriloquial Analysis of Employees’ and Managers’ Perspectives on a Diversity Change Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines how organizational members concretely appropriate equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives. This article results from a case study within a large Canadian organization, a study that was designed to explain the appropriation or disappropriation of discursive elements inherent to the implementation phase of new equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) initiatives. Using interview data, I explain how these elements contribute to the ways in which organizational members adapt and respond to these new organizational initiatives and practices. This research proposes to mobilize a Communicative Constitution of Organization (CCO) perspective that can aid in understanding how individual appropriation/disappropriation of diversity discourse could have implication for the emergence and sustainability of EDI initiatives. The paper identifies various forms of appropriation (compliant/unconditional, fully aligned, equivocal/conditional and disappropriation) performed by organizational members. Moreover, the findings introduce a gradient approach to appropriation, revealing how the process can evolve over time.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".