"你这是什么意思?":加拿大发展实践中的团结精神

IF 1.2 Q3 SOCIOLOGY
Sophia Boutilier
{"title":"\"你这是什么意思?\":加拿大发展实践中的团结精神","authors":"Sophia Boutilier","doi":"10.1108/ijssp-01-2024-0041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>With the launch of the Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP), the Canadian government named solidarity as a shared value and a driving motivation behind the FIAP. This paper explores how development workers understand and apply solidarity to their work, uncovering the opportunities and constraints they face.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42 development workers from Canada’s federal development agency between 2019 and 2020. Transcribed data were coded by the author to identify how workers made sense of solidarity within the development industry.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The majority of workers were unsure of how to define or operationalize solidarity, demonstrating confusion. Commonality was routinely mentioned as a facet of solidarity, but workers understood this term in diverse ways, with some considering commonality as a precondition that inhibited a sense of solidarity with development partners in the global South due to differences in living conditions. About a quarter identified power and privilege as necessary considerations in the process of building solidarity, showing potential for bonds across the inequalities that define development. About 40% of workers identified the institutional structure of the organization as an obstacle to solidarity.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This paper presents original data from Canadian development workers, providing the first study of their understanding of solidarity as a development ethic. It shows the gaps between rhetoric and practice while recommending ways for development organizations to meaningfully engage with solidarity in their work.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":47193,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“What do you mean by that?”: solidarity in Canadian development practice\",\"authors\":\"Sophia Boutilier\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ijssp-01-2024-0041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>With the launch of the Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP), the Canadian government named solidarity as a shared value and a driving motivation behind the FIAP. This paper explores how development workers understand and apply solidarity to their work, uncovering the opportunities and constraints they face.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42 development workers from Canada’s federal development agency between 2019 and 2020. Transcribed data were coded by the author to identify how workers made sense of solidarity within the development industry.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>The majority of workers were unsure of how to define or operationalize solidarity, demonstrating confusion. Commonality was routinely mentioned as a facet of solidarity, but workers understood this term in diverse ways, with some considering commonality as a precondition that inhibited a sense of solidarity with development partners in the global South due to differences in living conditions. About a quarter identified power and privilege as necessary considerations in the process of building solidarity, showing potential for bonds across the inequalities that define development. About 40% of workers identified the institutional structure of the organization as an obstacle to solidarity.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>This paper presents original data from Canadian development workers, providing the first study of their understanding of solidarity as a development ethic. It shows the gaps between rhetoric and practice while recommending ways for development organizations to meaningfully engage with solidarity in their work.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":47193,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijssp-01-2024-0041\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijssp-01-2024-0041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的随着女权主义国际援助政策(FIAP)的推出,加拿大政府将团结作为其共同价值观和推动力。本文探讨了发展工作者如何理解团结并将其应用到工作中,揭示了他们面临的机遇和制约因素。设计/方法/途径在 2019 年至 2020 年期间,对来自加拿大联邦发展机构的 42 名发展工作者进行了深入的半结构式访谈。作者对转录的数据进行了编码,以确定工作人员如何理解发展行业中的团结。人们经常提到共同性是团结的一个方面,但工人们对这一术语的理解各不相同,有些人认为共同性是一个先决条件,由于生活条件的差异,它抑制了与全球南部发展伙伴的团结意识。约四分之一的工人认为,在建立团结的过程中,权力和特权是必要的考虑因素,这显示了跨越界定发展的不平等而建立联系的潜力。约 40% 的工作者认为组织的体制结构是团结的障碍。 本文提供了来自加拿大发展工作者的原始数据,首次研究了他们对团结作为发展伦理的理解。它显示了言论与实践之间的差距,同时为发展组织在工作中切实参与团结提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“What do you mean by that?”: solidarity in Canadian development practice

Purpose

With the launch of the Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP), the Canadian government named solidarity as a shared value and a driving motivation behind the FIAP. This paper explores how development workers understand and apply solidarity to their work, uncovering the opportunities and constraints they face.

Design/methodology/approach

In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 42 development workers from Canada’s federal development agency between 2019 and 2020. Transcribed data were coded by the author to identify how workers made sense of solidarity within the development industry.

Findings

The majority of workers were unsure of how to define or operationalize solidarity, demonstrating confusion. Commonality was routinely mentioned as a facet of solidarity, but workers understood this term in diverse ways, with some considering commonality as a precondition that inhibited a sense of solidarity with development partners in the global South due to differences in living conditions. About a quarter identified power and privilege as necessary considerations in the process of building solidarity, showing potential for bonds across the inequalities that define development. About 40% of workers identified the institutional structure of the organization as an obstacle to solidarity.

Originality/value

This paper presents original data from Canadian development workers, providing the first study of their understanding of solidarity as a development ethic. It shows the gaps between rhetoric and practice while recommending ways for development organizations to meaningfully engage with solidarity in their work.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
59
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信