Reflexivity in Organization and Management Theory: A Study of the Production of the Research `Subject'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we draw on actor-network theory (ANT) to reflexively investigate the role of the researcher and the research community in the production of a research subject. We review our earlier work, which explores how the dynamics of refugee systems help to produce the research subject - in this case, the refugee. We then use ideas from ANT to move beyond the more conventional institutional and discursive analyses that are used in these articles. We include not just the activities of actors in the refugee system in our analysis, but also our own activities as researchers, as well as those of the broader research community We use the concept of translation to explore the role of these actors in the processes of social construction that produce refugees as a subject of academic study, which is related to, but distinct from, the `social' subject produced in the social setting under study. Generalizing from our own research experience, we argue for a reconceptualization of reflexivity in organization and management theory, which moves beyond the common view of heroic individuals struggling to understand and manage their role in their research towards an understanding of reflexivity as involving the research community as a whole.
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 | 0.048 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.110 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 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".