MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6907665272 · doi:10.25316/ir-16310

Not the Ladies’ Tees: How Gendered Practices and Language in the Golf Industry in Ontario Impact Women’s Engagement

2021· other· en· W6907665272 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueVIURRSpace (Vancouver Island University) · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsRoyal Roads University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender relationsFeminismIntersectionalityGender equalityFemininityWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In sporting industries, including the golf industry, there is a long-standing history of gendered\npractices events, exclusion, and “typical ‘ expectations” (Breger et al. 2019 p. 274 These practices\nare evident in golf through gendered language, gendered dress code, gendered history, gendered leagues, and\ngendered tee blocks. Specific gendered practices within the golf industry, such as gendered language,\ncontribute to participants’ experiences in important ways. Through gendered language such as “cart girl,”\nand “lady golfer,” the golf industry is perpetuating gendered ideals, and through a gendered dress\ncode and gender marked tee blocks, the industry is propagating ideas about women’s ability levels in the\nsport.\n\nWomen’s professional golf is a topic of increasing academic concentration (Bowes Kitching,\n2020a), but there is a gap in research regarding how gendered language and practices impact women in the\nindustry. Golf is historically referred to as a “gentleman’s game” (Billings et al., 2018 p. 97) and has been\nhistorically exclusionary to women (Bowes et al., 2020a). Golf participation rates are also lower for women\nthan for men, ( Snelgrove, Wood, 2015 and women often leave the sport due to the experiences\nthey have through their involvement. Augusta National Golf Club, one of golf’s most distinguished golf clubs\n(Swart et al. 2003 where the Master’s Tournament takes place, did not allow female members to join as\nmembers until 2012. When they finally allowed their first two female members, it was a great win for\nwomen’s golf (Andrews 2012 p. 2) and allowing for more equitable participation in the industry.\nIn addition, there is a history of policies that discriminate against women in golf, and often the\nexperiences women have as a result of these exclusionary policies impacts their participation and comfort in\nparticipating. Often, the policies can also limit their involvement in the sport or impact retention and lead to\nmore women leaving the sport. Largely, little research exists on women’s experience as participants in the\nsport (Mitchell et al., 2016). In recent years, diversity and women’s golf initiatives have been prominent in Ontario and the rest of Canada. In 2020, the PGA of Canada created a Diversity Inclusion Task Force with\nindustry professionals to allow underrepresented populations the chance to participate in golf (PGA of\nOntario, 2020). Golf Canada and the PGA of Canada launched a Women in Coaching program (Golf\nCanada, 2020), and Golf Canada and Golf Ontario have recently launched a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion\nStrategic Alliance with Korn Ferry (Golf Ontario, 2020). These initiatives bring together diverse and\nunderrepresented voices to contribute to diversity and inclusion in the golf industry and are significant in\nallowing various populations to experience the sport. However, more research is needed in the area of\nwomen in golf to accurately understand women’s experiences.\n\nResearch concerning women in golf is fundamental as Canadian women continue to gain\nemployment in the golf industry and increasingly play the sport. Women also have increasingly busy work and\nhome lives, and “fewer are maintaining lifelong roles as engaged sport participants” (O’Reilly et al., 2018 p.\n16). The trouble goes beyond the sphere of sports participation. Oftentimes, golf is in fact used to host\ninformal business meetings, and when women miss out on participating in these types of opportunities, it can\nimpact their career advancement. It is also well known that golf provides opportunity to men to socialize and\nstrengthen networking, but it does not always have the same social benefit for women (Agarwal et al. 2016\nThis research aims to fill the gap in the literature surrounding women’s experience in the golf industry,\nincluding gendered roles and the assumptions women face. This thesis in particular, aims to gain insight into\nthe gendered practices in golf from an insider’s perspective and raise awareness of how gendered practices\naffect women in the golf industry. Interviews with 10 female golfers who work in the industry were\nconducted with the aim of understanding how gendered practices in golf have impacted women in Ontario.\nThis research contributes to the areas of sport sociology, gender studies, and communications studies with\nregard to sports and gender.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0210.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVIURRSpace (Vancouver Island University)Same topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207