What can Organisation and Management Theory Learn from the Economies of Worth Framework?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The translation in 2006 of Boltanski and Thévenot’s book On Justification: Economies of Worth has generated growing interest among organizational and management scholars and is increasingly used to advance understanding in a variety of areas of study, such as strategizing (Denis, Langley & Rouleau, 2007), technological innovation (Kaplan & Murray, 2010), organizational functioning (Stark, 2009) or the management of legitimacy in the context of public controversies (Patriotta, Gond & Schultz, 2011). The purpose of this presenter symposium is to bring together scholars who have contributed to this development in order to present a variety of research currently engaging with Boltanski and Thévenot’s (2006) work and to discuss the potential of the economies of worth (EoW) framework to help advance our understanding of a broad range of organizational and managerial phenomena. The symposium assembles papers that either apply, develop, or mobilize creatively concepts from the EoW as well as discuss their limits. The prospects for cross-fertilizing EoW concepts with various streams of research such as institutional theory, strategy-as-practice, critical management, or managerial cognition will also be discussed.Change in a Pluralistic Context: What can EoW and Institutionalism Learn from Each Other?Presenter: Jean-Pascal Gond; HEC MontrealPresenter: Bernard Leca; IAE de LilleWhen Orders of Worth Clash: Negotiating Legitimacy in Situations of Moral MultiplexityPresenter: Juliane Reinecke; U. of WarwickPresenter: Andre Spicer; U. of WarwickPresenter: Koen Van Bommel; U. of WarwickApplying an 'Orders of Worth' Perspective to the Study of Inter-organizational CollaborationPresenter: Charlotte Cloutier; HEC MontrealPresenter: Ann Langley; HEC MontrealDomination, Institutions, Praxis & Actors' Emancipation: The Contribution of Pragmatic SociologyPresenter: Damon Golsorkhi; Grenoble Ecole de Management
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".