When Safe Spaces aren’t Safe: Understanding the Relationship between Organizational Characteristics and Service User Experiences of Oppression in Social Service Organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Social service organizations (SSOs) can be sites of oppression, where service users experience discrimination judgment, and powerlessness. In response, service users either leave, never receiving the care that they need, or they remain, internalizing the oppression, becoming disempowered and dependent. This is devastating for both service users and society. It can contribute to loss of housing, relapse and substance use, social isolation, and deterioration of mental and physical health. This three-paper dissertation explores service user experiences of oppression by SSOs to better understand how organizational dynamics contribute to these outcomes. Methods: This study used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design using survey (n=374) and focus group (n=66) data. Paper 1 tested the validity and reliability of the Service User Oppression Scale (SUOS). Paper 2, evaluated the relationship between organizational characteristics and service user oppression and the validity and reliability of the Anti-Oppressive Social Service Organizational Environment Scale to assess an organization’s alignment with anti-oppressive practice. Paper 3 drew on findings from the focus groups on oppression within service user and staff relationships. Results: Paper 1 found the SUOS is a valid and reliable measure of service user oppression. The rate of oppression was 84.8%, with 60.9% of participants experiencing multiple forms of oppression. In Paper 2 staff retention, physical accessibility, service user participation, and relationship between staff and service users were found to decrease service user experiences of oppression while perceived higher levels of cultural competency was found to lead to higher experiences of oppression. Age and gender were associated with service user experiences of oppression. In Paper 3, the role of staff in service user oppression was highlighted, alongside the impact of oppression on service users and recommendations to prevent oppression. Conclusions: This dissertation provides a foundation to understanding service user oppression in SSOs from the perspective of service users and insight into the rate of service user oppression, the forms of oppression experienced and valid and reliable assessment tools to measure both service user experiences of oppression and an organization’s level of anti-oppressive practice. Finally, it provides recommendations to reduce and prevent service user oppression.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".