The Practice of Theory Borrowing in Organizational Studies: Current Issues and Future Directions
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: none
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.873
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.308
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
The borrowing and application of concepts and theories from underlying disciplines, such as psychology and sociology, is commonplace in organization theory. This article critically reviews this practice in organizational research. It discusses the borrowing of theoretical perspectives across vertical (cross-level) and horizontal (cross-context) boundaries and makes an associated distinction between theories in organizations and theories of organizations. It also explicates several unintended consequences and metatheoretical challenges associated with theory borrowing and highlights the legitimate reasons and ways for borrowing theories. By way of example, this article reviews how theories and concepts have been borrowed and applied in organizational research from two different literatures: individual identity and social movements. Overall, it is argued that treating organizations as social actors is the key to appropriate horizontal and vertical theory borrowing in organizational studies, in that it highlights the distinctive features of the organizational social form and organizational social context.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Topic
- Management and Organizational Studies
- Field
- Business, Management and Accounting
- Canadian institutions
- Kellogg's (Canada)
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- SociologyOrganizational studiesOrganizational theoryContext (archaeology)Unintended consequencesOrganizational behaviorEpistemologySocial identity theoryIdentity (music)Organizational ecologyOrganizational identityPositive economicsOrganization developmentPublic relationsSocial psychologyOrganizational commitmentPsychologySocial sciencePolitical scienceManagementEconomicsSocial group
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes