Social‐Symbolic Work of Engaging Heterogeneous Communities: Participation Work and Entangled Effects on Organizations and Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Community participation is recognized as a crucial yet problematic element for addressing many issues in social development. Generating participation, however, is particularly challenging due to existing inequalities within heterogeneous communities, making it difficult for organizations to engage marginalized groups while letting go of their own control. We explore how organizations facilitate community participation through a qualitative comparative case study of two community radio stations in India. We find two approaches based on how organizations leverage three levels of influence: (1) open participation work leverages community members as audience and volunteers/staff by drawing on commonality between them. Furthermore, it defers decision making to community hierarchy; (2) protective participation work engages audience and volunteers/staff from marginalized groups, focusing on their differences from other community members, and defies community hierarchy in decision making. These two approaches led to contrasting outcomes: open participation work led to a pliable organization that invited the community in, but preserved community inequalities, and protective participation work led to a directive organization that restricted participation, but disrupted community inequalities. In unpacking these approaches, we extend the social‐symbolic work literature by theorizing how participation work creates entangled effects on the organization and community.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".