Theorizing temporary organizing to foster true cross fertilization: Focus on projects, processes and practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Stronger theorizing of project studies can serve as a bridge between organization studies and project studies. • Theoretical advancements occur on a spectrum from leveraging reference theories to developing home-grown theories. • Practice-driven institutionalism from organization theory illustrates the theorizing of temporary organizing as a top-down approach. • Home grown theorizing of the phenomenon of a crisis is illustrated as a bottom-up approach. Extant scholarship in project studies is calling for fertilizing across disciplines to pave the way to stronger theorizing. This essay responds to this call by spurring a debate on how to theorize temporary organizing in new and creative ways — both broadly and with a particular focus on projects, arguably the most prevalent form of such organizing. We propose addressing projects and other forms of temporary organization as processual, practice-based phenomena that provide ample opportunities to foster cross-fertilization, in particular between the related disciplines of organization and project studies. To this end, we argue that theoretical advancements in a discipline can occur on a spectrum—ranging from leveraging reference theories from related fields (a top-down approach) to developing home-grown theories grounded in empirical research (a bottom-up approach). This spectrum serves as the foundation for this essay, as we develop this processual, practice-based perspective to project studies by illustrating how (1) reference theories from organization studies such as practice-driven institutionalism generate new insights on temporary organizing and (2) home-grown theories of temporary organizing generated by studying projects and other forms of temporary organization may have theoretical and practical implications beyond project studies.
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 | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".