There’s a dad for that! : Naming men in work-life balance and entrepreneurial decision-making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores work-family balance in relation to entrepreneurial decision-making using men and masculinities literature as the lens of critical analysis. This research critically examines men’s subjective work-life balance experiences by evaluating their attempts to navigate between their fatherhood and entrepreneurial goals. There has been a flood of research since the introduction of Greenhaus and Beutell’s (1985) sources of conflict between work and family where the central focus is often women’s experiences (Hammer et al., 2011, Byron, 2005, Thompson et al., 1999). Many western countries, such as Canada, are attempting to create equal opportunities for both men and women at work and at home. This work highlights men as men by using men and masculinities as a lens for critiquing work-life balance and entrepreneurial decision-making to emphasise Canada’s shift in fatherhood ideologies and the political push to include men in work-life balance discussions. The findings of this research highlight some men’s approach to work-life balance and demonstrates the importance of using Hearn’s (2004) concept of the distinction aspect within the hegemony of men as a tool of critical analysis. This thesis builds on men and masculinities research by including competition and men’s interpretation of distinction. This finding demonstrates that both internal and external social hegemonic perceptions for gaining and maintaining power and control create an opportunity for some men to view work-life balance as a source of distinction. This thesis reveals that shifting ideologies concerning men’s domestic selves, hegemonic masculinities, and men’s power negotiations with other men and women are challenging traditional masculinities embedded in entrepreneurship.
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 | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".