Leadership as boundary work in healthcare teams
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
This paper proposes that boundary work is inherent to leadership practices in healthcare settings, and explores this phenomenon in interprofessional healthcare teams. Specifically, the study focuses on leading through and across boundaries in four interprofessional healthcare teams operating in the area of mental health services. We give special consideration to the specific contexts of these teams, and address the boundaries that are constructed and managed in interactions. Our qualitative study revealed that leadership can be exercised by different members and at different levels within the teams, and that it involves managing the boundaries between (a) roles of different members of the leadership constellation, (b) leadership and clinical roles, (c) formal leaders and other members of the team, (d) different professions, (e) personal life experiences and professional work, and (f) the team and what members consider to be the environment. We identify different types of boundary work tactics that involve opening, closing, and contesting/negotiating boundaries. In addition, we address the potential consequences of each of these tactics. We consider the implications of our findings to leadership research and practice in healthcare contexts and beyond.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.018 |
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