Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This book aims to demonstrate how, over the past 25 years, the field of organization theories (OTs) has been providing stimulating, thoughtful, and innovative perspectives. Junior researchers and PhD students will find everything they need to know about key academic conversations central to the field today. The book offers a selective immersion in organizational institutionalism, convention analysis, network analysis, knowledge studies, discourse studies, and practice studies. For each of these perspectives, the book explores its different research streams and zooms in on the research communities that give rise to them. In addition, it highlights how these perspectives all intersect with each other to form a mosaic of ideas that define today’s organizations. This book also invites early career researchers and graduate students to learn how recent theories view and portray the organization and, more specifically, to understand current research questions, conceptual resources, and methods. A deep knowledge of recent OTs is key when building a compelling literature review and making meaningful theoretical contributions. This book offers readers the opportunity to develop their theory-building skills and more by taking a deep dive into the complexities and controversies of OTs. The main arguments of each perspective are illustrated by specific exemplars from academic journals. Each chapter contains a synoptic table summarizing the main scholarly components within each perspective and its research substreams.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 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 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".