The contested meaning-making of diplomatic norms: competence in practice in Southeast Asian multilateralism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The supposedly fixed set of norms within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), commonly referred to as the “ASEAN way,” is both celebrated and maligned as a key element of Southeast Asian diplomacy. In this article, we contest this orthodoxy through a practitioner-near account of ASEAN diplomatic norms in practice. We find that the “ASEAN way” is best understood as a rhetorical commonplace, a well-established topological resource that social agents use to advance and contest claims of competent diplomatic practice in the ASEAN community of practice. We build on and bridge insights from norm contestation, practice theory, and discourse literatures to develop an original framework for the study of contestation in communities of practice. Drawing from documentary evidence and 61 interviews with practitioners of ASEAN diplomacy, we illustrate our argument by examining contestation in practice in the context of the organization’s response to the Rohingya crisis and the South China Sea disputes.
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 | 0.050 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.099 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".