Interconnecting the practice turn and communicative approach to organizing: A new challenge for collective action?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue advances knowledge of collective action-one of the most challenging issues for contemporary businesses and organizations-by bringing together theoretical and empirical contributions at the intersection of the practice turn (Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011;Knorr-Cetina, Schatzki, & Von Savigny, 2005;Nicolini, 2012;Rouleau, 2013;Whittington, 2011) and communicative approaches to organizing (Cooren, 2015; Putnam & Nicotera, 2008).Scholars from various disciplines (e.g.sociology, management, psychology, communication, economics and ergonomic studies) have long been interested in the ongoing transformation and enactment of collective action at work in relation to wider organizational transformations.Interpretive (Putnam & Pacanowsky, 1983) or process theories (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002), in particular, have proposed seeing collective (or co-oriented) action as relying upon the heedful interrelating of actions (Weick & Roberts, 1993) rather than on the establishment of shared organizational knowledge or culture.Accordingly, we can understand collective action as the capacity of a collective to generate a performance by constantly reenacting the meaning and orientation of their action in a singular experience within a wider cultural and historical experience (Arnaud & Mills, 2012).Today, more than ever, collective action is a distributed and hybrid performance, a polyphonic dance of human and non-human agency not necessarily performed within a formal organization (Cooren, 2010;Robichaud & Cooren, 2013).Within these developments, while recognizing the possibility of a "community without a unity" (Corlett, 1989;Nicolini, 2012), the question of how the diversity of practices across time and space become interrelated, organized and recognized as a collective is particularly salient.In particular, what is the role of communication in making connections between diverse bundles of practices so that a sense of collectiveness is formed?How can multiple voices become the one voice of an organized entity, thus gaining coherence while remaining different?This is what collective action is about in modern organizing: a phenomenon in between situated communication and practice.The first section of this introduction explores the hypothesis that collective action is about how people work within a social and organizational setting to construct and mobilize interests and resources, and how people create the conditions under which social change can occur for the greatest benefit of all concerned.The second section shows how 691
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 | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 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".