To read this content please select one of the options below:

Pragmatic evaluation of transdisciplinary research on gender equity in the New Zealand public service

Jane Parker (School of Management, College of Business, Massey University, Albany, New Zealand)
Amanda Young-Hauser (Psychology, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand)
Janet Sayers (School of Management (Albany), Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand)
Patricia Loga (School of Management, College of Business, Massey University, Albany, New Zealand)
Selu Paea (Pacific Student Support, College of Sciences, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand)
Shirley Barnett (School of Management (Albany), Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand)

Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management

ISSN: 1746-5648

Article publication date: 1 September 2021

Issue publication date: 3 March 2022

122

Abstract

Purpose

Despite the need for such, little scholarly attention has been paid to transdisciplinary enquiry into gender inequities in workplaces. The authors provide a pragmatic evaluation of the transdisciplinary research (TDR) model by Hall et al. (2012) for framing the study of this societal issue, shedding light on the challenges, principles and values that could usefully inform subsequent TDR in organisational settings.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper evaluates the model in relation to TDR on gender inequities in New Zealand's public service by Hall et al. (2012) Content analysis on our reflective narratives from research team meetings, email exchanges, informal discussions and a workshop reveals TDR study insights. Findings show support for the model and its four broad phases and surface principles and values for applied TDR enquiry that addresses societal challenges in the organisational context.

Findings

The adoption of a TDR model to examine a study of equity in the public service revealed practical and conceptual challenges, encouraging ongoing reflection and adaptive behaviour on the researchers' part. The pragmatic evaluation also highlighted environmental constraints on undertaking TDR, with implications for the ambition of future studies.

Research limitations/implications

This evaluative enquiry encourages similar research in other organisational and national settings to validate the use of TDR to gain insightful, contextualised understandings of social challenges centred in the organisational setting.

Practical implications

This pragmatic evaluation of a TDR model's capacity to approximate the approach and phases of our applied enquiry lays the groundwork to refining TDR approaches used in subsequent studies aimed at addressing societal issues in the organisational setting.

Social implications

This paper can potentially promote greater collaboration between research scholars and other stakeholders wanting to develop TDR paradigms and applied enquiry that can meaningfully inform workplace and societal impacts.

Originality/value

This pragmatic evaluation of a TDR approach involves its initial application to the study of equity at work and develops principles and values that could inform TDR paradigms and methodologies of subsequent enquiries in the field.

Keywords

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the staff and managers of several public service agencies in New Zealand and experts from various ministries and other national bodies, for taking part in this study. Without their insights, this manuscript about transdisciplinary research could not have been written. The authors would also like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. The authors are also indebted to Massey University for supporting this study with Strategic Innovation Funding (Research) (no. RM22440).

Citation

Parker, J., Young-Hauser, A., Sayers, J., Loga, P., Paea, S. and Barnett, S. (2022), "Pragmatic evaluation of transdisciplinary research on gender equity in the New Zealand public service", Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 41-60. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-01-2021-2097

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles