Vulnerability Practices among Professionals in Multidisciplinary Settings
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
Professional workers are expected to display confidence and mastery in their work roles, and may be hesitant to reveal their doubts and insecurities, especially in multidisciplinary settings characterized by status differences. However, scholars have recognized the benefits of sharing vulnerabilities to create opportunities for social support. We contribute to the literature by revealing how this might be achieved through a ritualized sequence of “vulnerability practices” in a dedicated setting. Based on a qualitative study of a weekly meeting where a multidisciplinary group of professionals shares experiences, we develop a process model that explains how vulnerability practices evolve through phases of individual disclosure and communal reflection bridged by theorizing from experiences. We reveal how a delicate tension between social pressure (to display vulnerabilities) and social support (to contain them) underpins these practices, and how this tension is influenced by power relations associated with multidisciplinarity. We show how participants’ appraisals of past episodes shape their willingness to engage in subsequent episodes, reinforcing or undermining the capacity of the setting to serve as a “holding environment” offering interpretation and containment. We thus reveal holding environments at work to be precarious accomplishments, created and maintained through ritualized vulnerability practices, and imbued by power relations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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