MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013923016 · doi:10.1177/0170840606064106

Managerial Frames and Institutional Discourses of Change: Employee Appropriation and Resistance

2006· article· en· W2013923016 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganization Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppropriationFraming (construction)Frame (networking)Frame analysisResistance (ecology)SociologyDiscourse analysisManagement control systemPublic relationsControl (management)EpistemologyPolitical scienceManagementSocial scienceEconomicsLinguisticsComputer scienceContent analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes that the notions of frame and frame appropriation are useful tools for the study of control in organizations, as well as for the analysis of the connection between micro-level discursive activities and wider discourses that enable and constrain such activities. To date, most studies of framing and of wider discourses have proceeded independently of each other. An empirical study of bank employees' accounts of their responses to two different changes introduced by management indicates that employees frame their responses in part according to their individual capabilities and experiences; that employee frames show an alignment with managerial frames and institutional discourses that are unified and reified; and that employee frames exhibit both alignment and misalignment with managerial frames that are open to contestation. The study also indicates that institutional discourses can both constrain and enable employee resistance to managerial frames.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it