Social power and information technology implementation: a contentious framing lens
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
Research on the organizational implementation of information technology (IT) and social power has favoured explanations based on issues of resource power and process power at the expense of matters of meaning power. As a result, although the existence and importance of meaning power is acknowledged, its distinctive practices and enacted outcomes remain relatively under-theorized and under-explored by IT researchers. This paper focused on unpacking the practices and outcomes associated with the exercise of meaning power within the IT implementation process. Our aim was to analyze the practices employed to construct meaning and enact a collective ‘definition of the situation’. We focused on framing and utilizing the signature matrix technique to represent and analyze the exercise of meaning power in practice. The paper developed and illustrated this conceptual framework using a case study of a conflictual IT implementation in a challenging public sector environment. We concluded by pointing out the situated nature of meaning power practices and the enacted outcomes. Our research extends the literature on IT and social power by offering an analytical framework distinctly suited to the analysis and deeper understanding of the meaning power properties.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| 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)
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