Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to demonstrate the value of forum theatre as a means to promote second-order awareness of workplace conflict and to further pragmatise cyber-systemic awareness to a wider public. Design/methodology/approach A blended methodology rooted in grounded theory and action research is used to assess the individual learning of participants in a forum theatre intensive studying workplace conflict. The results are then briefly theorised through the lens of second-order cybernetics. Findings Data indicate significant growth in self, other and context awareness among participants. All three of these competencies can reasonably be considered components of second-order observation. Research limitations/implications The sample size thus far is, because of the time and resource constraints of the project, quite small, but the results strongly suggest a “proof of concept” that invites further study. Practical implications Institutions of various types that experience workplace conflict may be inspired to use similar methods. Cyberneticians and system scientists may also wish to avail themselves of these methods to communicate fundamental cyber-systemic concepts to a wider public. Social implications Buoyed by an empirical demonstration of its effectiveness in facilitating greater self-reflection and alternative action in situations of conflict, a wider uptake of forum theatre technique (and the cyber-systemic concepts entailed), can make a significant contribution to the resolution/dissolution of a variety of conflicts across society. Originality/value This is the only empirical investigation of the outcomes of forum theatre known to the authors. It is certainly unique in its second-order cybernetic framework.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".