(Inter)subjectivity in the research pair: Countertransference and radical reflexivity in organizational research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Destabilizing what we know, a central tenet of critical reflexive research, is difficult without making unconscious assumptions, beliefs, and emotions available for thought, articulation, and questioning. Articulating countertransference, a technique borrowed from psychoanalysis, informs our efforts to raise awareness of the unconscious dimensions of field experiences and thus foster radical reflexivity. Bridging the literatures on reflexivity and relational psychoanalysis, we develop a new four-dimension method of writing and analyzing fieldnotes— observing, capturing the story, articulating countertransference, and developing interpretations—that foregrounds unconscious dimensions of experience. We make visible the fieldnotes we generated during an organizational study. In doing so, we demonstrate how a research pair working together in real time can become aware of their intersubjective processes, fold together multiple dimensions of experience (conscious and unconscious), and co-construct a shared understanding of organizational dynamics. This article is valuable because it demonstrates how psychoanalytic concepts can be mobilized by psychoanalytically informed, but not formally trained, organizational researchers.
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 | 0.073 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".