Barriers to Women in Policing - Traversing the Gender Gap: An Examination into the Perceptions and Experiences of Senior Ranking Policemen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study investigates senior ranking policemen’s perceptions, perspectives, and experiences with policewomen. More specifically, the level of awareness that senior ranking policemen have regarding the barriers and challenges encountered by policewomen, and what police organizations are doing to address the barriers and challenges. Data were generated through in-depth semi-structured interviews with nine senior ranking policemen from two police organizations within Canada. The overall methodological approach in this study was qualitative and used a process of analytic analysis informed through grounded theory (Saldaña, 2011). The research findings reveal that Canadian police organizations are gendered worksites, where policewomen continue to encounter daily organizational challenges, thereby restricting their full participation and overall wellness, within police organizations. Despite the many challenges and barriers for policewomen, the senior ranking policemen remain hopeful that policewomen will have more parity, equality, and equity in the years ahead. My study separates itself from past research on gender and policing as my study is Canadian based, with most of the previous studies being done in other parts of the world. In addition, my study separates itself as it the only one that has drawn upon the National Institute of Justice Report (Starheim, n.d.) and their subsequent 30x30 initiative, while centering senior ranking policemen’s experiences and perspectives in relation to gender equality and gender equity issues.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".