‘It Was Such a Handy Term’: Management Fashions and Pragmatic Ambiguity*
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
abstract This article builds on constructs that authors have labelled strategic ambiguity , interpretative viability , umbrella constructs , and boundary objects , and suggests that these constructs all articulate a central concern for collective action and the role of ambiguity therein. It characterizes as pragmatic ambiguity the condition of admitting more than one course of action, and elucidates and operationalizes this new construct. Drawing on the sociology of translation ( Callon, 1986 ; Latour, 1987 ), [1] it argues that pragmatic ambiguity is both the result and the resource of a collective process of intéressement occurring during the rise in popularity of a new management approach. Following Benders and van Veen (2001 ), the article posits that pragmatic ambiguity increases during the rise of a management fashion. It provides empirical evidence in support of this claim by means of a longitudinal analysis of quality management (QM) concepts as articulated by several authors both before and during the Quality Movement of the 1980s and 1990s. The analyses of QM texts show that concepts became vaguer, more ambiguous, and more general as the Quality Movement gained momentum, suggesting the presence of a positive feedback loop between pragmatic ambiguity and popularity. In addition, the data illustrate how pragmatic ambiguity was achieved and sustained textually, and how it was supported by a variety of social, linguistic and rhetorical factors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it