Genusattribut och kvinnors inflytande i styrelsearbete : En fallstudie om kvinnors inflytande i bolagsstyrelser
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women are in the minority compared to their male board colleagues. Previous studies have solely focused on equal representation but not what happens after the representation is fulfilled. The number of women on boards is increasing, nonetheless there is a lack of studies showing the influence of women on boards. With regard to equal representation, more women on corporate boards can speak for increased equality between the sexes, at the same time discrimination can occur in board work where women do not have the same opportunities for influence as men. Stereotyping of gender attributes for men and women leads to difficulties for women to achieve influence on boards as the characteristics expected in the boardroom are not congruent with the characteristics expected of women. As a result of entrenched gender patterns, gender attributes can explain a statistically increased representation but limitations for women's influence. The purpose of this study is to describe and create an understanding of how women who are board members encounter their experiences regarding expectations and opportunities for influence in decision-making and opportunities to express their opinions in the boardroom. To achieve the purpose of the study, a qualitative method has been used. Through semi-structured interviews, ten women who are members of five or more corporate boards have participated with their experiences. The study has shown that women who are board members mostly work on issues that are considered typically feminine by having a seat on the audit committee. The women in the study used both agentic and communal characteristics to describe their themselves as well as masculine physical markers, thus they act within their gender attribute by describing themselves with communal characteristics. At the same time the women also act within a leadership position by describing themselves with agentic characteristics and masculine physical markers. In addition, the study shows that the board members feel that women as leaders tend to be more withdrawn and less confident than men. Because women are considered less self-confident, the study shows that women on corporate boards act overachieving in a way to reach influence and reduce the risk of discrimination. Despite this, all women feel that at some point they have been silenced, that suggestions have been taken over or that they have not been listened to by the others in the boardroom. The members' solid competences are described as crucial to achieving equal influence, where they describe that women with less experience deal with greater difficulties.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.010 |
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".