Social and Solidarity Economies as Exemplars of Democratic Workplaces: Applying Critical Feminisms and Critical Pedagogies to Gauge for Gender Equity and Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last few decades, there has been increasing interest among organizational theorists in understanding the characteristics and impacts of participatory workplaces, including organizations situated within Social and Solidarity Economies. Empirical and theoretical studies highlight the promise of these organizations as democratic settings, with some evidence for positive effects to members’ experience of agency, engagement, equity, and socio-economic satisfaction. Absent within several of these analyses is a focus on ‘troubling’, through critical perspectives, these organizations’ practice of democracy. To address this gap, this thesis centres gender equity and participation to explore what facilitates and hinders these constructs within these organizations. It applies tenets from critical feminisms and critical pedagogy to offer a revisitation of the practice of democracy within these organizations. It identifies potential actions for these organizations to consider, towards correcting gender-blindness and advancing critical education on their path to a more nuanced and equitable approach to workplace democracy.
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 | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".