Of Organizing and Sensemaking: From Action to Meaning and Back Again in a Half‐Century of Weick’s Theorizing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The themes of organizing and sensemaking have reverberated throughout Weick’s remarkable career and constitute one of the hallmarks of his contribution. We review his major works and show how Weick differentially emphasizes organizing and sensemaking over time and, eventually, arrives at a fuller integration of meaning and action. Initially, Weick (1969; 1979) models their relationship as linear, focusing on how organizing functioned as a context for sensemaking, an approach we labelSensemaking in Organizing. Later, however, Weick (1995a; 2005) construes their relationship in more dynamic, interactive, and reciprocal cycles, modelling sensemaking as the process whereby organizing is achieved, an approach we labelSensemaking as Organizing. We explore the evolution and implications of these approaches and discuss their impact on management scholarship. Finally, we draw out potential future research directions at the interface of organizing and sensemaking.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".