Intentional Routine Change: The Interplay of Reflective and Experimental Spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While an increasing body of empirical work explores how the everyday enactment of routines can bring about their change, we still know little about mechanisms that are involved in the intentional change of routines. We argue that intentional routine change is the process by which multiple actors engage in efforts to alter the performances and understandings of a given routine. Based on a longitudinal, comparative case study of two initiatives to change patient processes in hospitals, the paper suggests that relational spaces – temporary social settings – to be important mechanisms in this process. We show that spaces allow the development and materialization of new parts of a routine while previous parts are still in place. In particular, we find that relational spaces provide for the interruption of existing patterns and identify two types of such spaces. We suggest that reflective spaces support the development of new shared understandings while experimental spaces enable the integration of new actions into routine performances. Second, we show that change requires that reflective and experimental spaces be related to each other. A lack of interrelation may result in blockages even when the understandings of the need to change a routine are broadly shared.
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 | 0.031 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".