Bibliographic record
Abstract
How to ‘career’ has become a dominant motif for those researching career and for those individuals within careers in organisations, both of whom we want to argue in this chapter are in the end-less process of (dis)organisation. This chapter offers a challenge to traditional and more critical thinking in the broad practice and study of career. We draw our focus from intellectual developments in critical organisation studies which offer a way of developing radical neo- or post-disciplinary study that is relevant and opportune for our contemporary conjuncture. Clearly, therefore, in addressing broad ontological and epistemological phenomena – what for some might be defined as ‘the human condition’ – our challenge necessarily cuts across constructed micro-disciplinary boundaries such as career counselling, career development, career guidance, and career management. Thus the nature of our argument is such that we do not consider the minutiae of relationships and debates between these micro-disciplines but seek to question current understanding and practice by a consideration of what we propose to call ‘metacareer’ praxis We first introduce and outline the relationship between so-called ‘postmodernity’, our views on ‘meta-career thinking’, and the challenge this poses to extant theory and practice in the field of career. Whilst we acknowledge that theoretical advances concerned with subjectivity, identity, and interpretation have opened up significant new ways of looking at career (e.g. Young & Collin, 1992), we argue that the literature across the micro-disciplines of career remains insufficiently self-critical and unwittingly dependent upon the fragile assumptions and constructions of Western reason and rationality. Second we identify five key humanist ‘gold standards’ or anchors, namely true self, meaning, progress, order, and positioning. We argue that we have to be aware of and question our ‘faith’ in the persistence of a redemptive humanism in the face of what some want to call ‘postmodern times’.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".