When a Debate Becomes a Crisis: Challenges in Implementing an Intersectional Approach Within a Quebec Feminist Organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the challenges surrounding the integration of intersectionality within a feminist ““table de concertation”” (roundtable) in Quebec through a collaborative research project grounded in a partnership-based methodology. Drawing on a sensemaking framework with a focus on identity, the study analyzes interviews with members of various feminist organizations to explore how individuals and organizations interpret and operationalize intersectionality. The findings reveal that the polysemous nature of intersectionality, combined with divergent organizational and individual interpretations, generated significant tensions that escalated into an organizational crisis. Tensions were further exacerbated by top-down decision-making processes and differing views on the roundtable’s role in modelling versus facilitating intersectional practices. The article argues that creating dialogue spaces sensitive to organizational diversity and promoting deeper awareness of intersectionality are critical to preventing polarization and facilitating more sustainable organizational change. These insights contribute to broader discussions on crisis communication, organizational identity, and the dynamics of social movements.
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 | 0.038 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.067 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".