Composing with the <i>terra fluida</i> of interaction: new paths for CCO research as relational practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose For more than 20 years, research on the communicative constitution of organizations (CCO) has drawn on interactional data to offer novel explanations of how organizational phenomena emerge, change, and stabilize in and through communication. Accordingly, the idea of “never leaving the terra firma of interaction” has become a tenet of CCO research, guiding scholars’ theorizing, data collection, and analysis. The aim of this paper is to reflect on and enrich this tenet. Design/methodology/approach First, this paper traces the history of the concept of the terra firma of interaction and its usage until now. Second, drawing on ethnographic writings on complicit reflexivity and on the two first authors’ doctoral research experiences, this paper identifies current limitations of the terra firma notion. Findings Reflecting on these experiences, the idea of composing with the terra fluida (fluid ground) of interaction is proposed as an enrichment of the terra firma of interaction concept because it advances present discussions about CCO researchers’ positionality and reflexivity while opening up new paths for understanding how organizational phenomena unfold as relational fields in processes of communication. Originality/value This paper questions and reevaluates the role of the researcher in CCO scholarship and, in doing so, offers new insights into the value of acknowledging researchers’ entanglement and complicity with the fluid fields of interaction they aim to understand.
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 | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".