Reflections on a communication journey into professionalism and organizing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Much research in the field of communication studies has evidenced a ‘performative turn’ in how it views professionalism, professionals, and the professions. This special issue, Opening up the meanings of ‘the professional’, professional organizations, and professionalism in communication studies, documents this process and lays out a research agenda in and from communication studies that can inform scholarship on professionalism and organizing. In addition to mapping out and contextualizing the multiple, contested meanings of professionalism, particularly in novel or ‘non-standard’ contexts, it shows how workers enact, negotiate, reify, and resist the meanings of professionalism in both aspirational and exclusionary ways. When we shift the focus from professional experts (and the institutional apparatus that protects their status, autonomy, and authority) to expertise, as Ashcraft suggests in her contribution to this special issue, scholarly analysis needs to account for an entire network of actors, ideas, instruments, and forms of organizing that allow for successful—or failed—performances of expertise and understand that those performances rest on economies of difference. Economies of difference are distinctions among the sorts of work, workers, and working that wield political power in that they implicate social structures and dictate how specialized expertise is and can be deployed and recognized. Economies of difference create and benefit from inequities. The articles in this special issue offer empirical and conceptual windows into the contested and messy performance of professionalism, how it serves as a resource for some and a constraint for others, and how its contemporary meaning is potentially disrupted.
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 | 0.029 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".