Performance as (Dis)organizing: The Case of Discursive Material Practices in Academic Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent theorizing in Science and Technology Studies (STS) has taken a “performance” turn. Performative approaches theorize how meaning and matter relate in the context of situated practices. Scholars of organizational communication have also turned to theorizing the relationship between matter and meaning in the context of organization. In this article, I bring together these two strands of theorizing to offer a unique lens to study materiality as a process of (dis)organization. Through an empirical analysis of an academic technology organization, I illustrate the “performance as (dis)organization” lens, detailing three “organizing moves” that encompassed the discursive material practices of academic technology coordinators: boundary working, context shaping, and relational bridging. I conclude by discussing how performance as (dis)organizing adds dimension to theories that take seriously the materiality of practice.
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 | 0.026 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".