Communication-as-Constitutive Perspectives on Organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theoretical views that center the constitutive force of communication for organization and organizing have a long lineage across journals of the Academy of Management. Drawing from rhetoric, semiotics, linguistics, phenomenology, cybernetics, and pragmatism, among other traditions, this stream of research has established organizational communication as a key disciplinary approach within the Academy of Management, comparable to neighboring approaches such as organizational sociology, organizational psychology, and organizational economics. This collection puts together key articles published across journals of the Academy that have centered on communication as a main mode of explanation for managerial and organizational phenomena. This introductory essay locates three main clusters of articles corresponding to three stages of development in the literature that has come to be known as “communication as constitutive of organization” (CCO) scholarship: emerging, unpacking, and showcasing. By outlining this trajectory, the collection provides a platform for articulating these valuable contributions, offers a coherent framework to reflect on this body of work, and outlines an agenda for future research. The collection offers management scholars and practitioners both an overview of, and straightforward access to, scholarship published in Academy journals over the years that considers communication as the main constitutive element of organization.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".