Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term “institutional ethnography” has been used since 1987 to refer to an approach to social inquiry pioneered by Canadian sociologist Dorothy E. Smith (Campbell & DeVault 2011; Smith 1987). By the 1980s, Smith had become known internationally for studies in the social organization of knowledge with roots in the women's movement, Marx, phenomenology, and ethnomethodology. The central concerns of this approach included beginning with the standpoint of women, treating social actors as active knowers of their worlds, and examining the social relations of knowledge – especially the gender‐based divide between everyday worlds of local experience and the ruling forms of institutional organization in capitalist societies. Institutional ethnography both continues this project and refocuses it, placing emphasis on (1) ethnography as an approach to studying social organization and (2) a conception of institutional processes in which text‐based forms of coordination play a key role. Since the 1980s, a significant body of work in institutional ethnography has been built up, numerous institutional ethnography‐based dissertations have been undertaken, several international conferences on institutional ethnography have been held, journal special issues on institutional ethnography have been published, and institutional ethnography sections of the Society for the Study of Social Problems and the International Sociology Association have been established.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".