Perceptions of organizational culture in the Prince Edward Island public sector: Through the eyes of women in senior management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explores perspectives on women's equality through an examination of organizational culture in a public sector organization in Prince Edward Island. From 1990 to the present, a pervasive assumption that women's equality has been achieved has diminished receptivity to program and policy initiatives, to workplace accommodations of women into senior roles, and to social discourse about continuing gender inequalities. Eleven female senior public administrators from among a population of 20 participated in either a focus group, or 1 of 6 semi-structured interviews of 1 hour or more. The study incorporates postmodern feminist and gender theory to substantiate the inequalities that have gone underground in a neo-conservative and individualist age. Joan Acker connects theory to organizational practices, processes, and performance to define gender as a relational entity which operates to subordinate women. The study also demonstrates the key role of language and discourse in fixing the identities and positions of women and men into binary relationships. The study describes the active role of the 10 participants in incrementally shaping their organizational culture. It concludes with an identification of perspectives and strategies that advocates might use in intransigent situations, to preserve a sense of self.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".