Trade Associations and the Strategic Framing of Change in Contested Issue Organizational Fields: The Evolution of Sustainability in the Canadian Mining Industry, 1993-2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines the role of intermediary organizations in processes of change in organizational fields defined by contested issues. Drawing from a 20 year longitudinal study of the evolution of sustainability in Canadian Mining, I demonstrate how trade associationswhich occupy an intermediary position between incumbents and challengers in a fieldengage in the strategic framing of field-level change through interactions with both internal (incumbent) and external (challenger) audiences. Using a variety of data sources including 102 interviews with key actors in the field and the complete internal archives of the national mining trade association between 1993 and 2013, I demonstrate the key role of bridging work in the establishment and reinforcement of strategic frames. The model I present describes the process whereby internal and external contestation reveals conceptual divides which triggers bridging work on the part of intermediary organizations. I also demonstrate how once changes are introduced to the field, contradictions in strategic frames may emerge which triggers subsequent contestation and bridging work. In addition to this qualitative study, I also develop a conceptual framework which aims to enhance our understanding of when and why TAs are likely to play an active role in field-level change. I argue that playing an active role in field-level change on the part of trade associations hinges on the need for collective action by incumbents and the degree to which a trade association has autonomy from and control over its members. I discuss the contributions of my dissertation for research on the strategic framing of field-level change, intermediary organizations in organizational fields, and research on trade associations more generally.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".