Institutionalized norms of conducting research and social realities: A research synthesis of empirical works from 1983 to 2002
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on a systematic review of the last 20 years of empirical research grounded in institutional theory, we identify some of the main norms of conducting research in this literature. The level of institutions, the formal/informal institutional pillars and the direction of effects are the foundation of these norms addressed by researchers in the last two decades. This review indicates that empirical research is well behind changes in social realities. This may be related to both the institutionalization process that takes place in any academic research and to the suggested difficulty that scholars find in moving away from widely accepted research models and practices, given the context within which they evolve. It is also concluded that local/national regulative institutions are giving up their position to more global normative and cognitive organizational field institutions. As the business environment become more global, giving more importance to transnational and informal institutions will be more crucial in institutional analysis of organizations.
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 | 0.061 | 0.175 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".