Temporary institutional breakdowns: the work of university traditions in the consumption of innovative textbooks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although university traditions can be fun, they are ‘not just for fun’. Moving beyond the visual quaint imagery of university traditions, this study explores the workings of institutional traditions during the everyday consumption of pedagogic innovation. The study employs a Reader-Response Theory, a prominent school of literary criticism, of two textbook innovations within a university establishment which had a distinct tradition to research beginning in the early 1960s. The findings suggest that the temporary institutional breakdown provides a powerful medium to understand the work of university traditions in the consumption of innovative textbooks. We show that in the consumption of pedagogic innovation, the recipients are not passive but are co-constructors of university tradition defence, via the articulation of values, boundary containment and identity work. We identify, moreover, four types of readings of the pedagogic innovation – interpretative, instrumental, inversive and reflexive. The findings also reveal three distinct forms of tradition vocabularies employed in the university administration of pedagogic innovation – breach concerns, redress articulation and reintegration epistemology. Overall, the findings contribute to a more sophisticated understanding of the ‘past in the present’ in the workings of university traditions in the everyday consumption of pedagogic innovation.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".