Strategy practitioners and the procedural legitimacy of strategic planning in nonprofit community sport
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines how leaders of community sport organizations (CSOs) engage in a strategic planning process through the intersection of institutional work and the strategy-as-practice (SAP) approach. The SAP approach focuses on the micro-level social activities, processes, and practices that inform how organizational leaders engage in strategic planning. A multiple-case study of four CSOs with contrasting approaches to the practice of strategy provides insight into the role of strategy practitioners and their choice of strategy activities. The study also examines how these activities contribute to the procedural legitimacy of strategic planning. The findings highlight four roles that strategy practitioners hold within their clubs (i.e. consultant, board member, staff member, facilitator) and three general types of activities that indicate varying levels of stakeholder involvement in planning. The findings provide evidence of the need for a granular approach to the study of strategic planning and a focus on how organizational leaders’ roles and choice of activities shape strategic planning and its legitimacy.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it