Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to counter the prevailing pessimism about the state of organizational sociology by examining the contributions of this line of inquiry to higher education studies. It contends that, despite sociologists’ concerns over the usefulness of organizational sociology for informing comprehension of today’s organizations, this subfield of sociology continues to hold tremendous promise for higher education scholars interested in understanding how and why higher education institutions behave the way they do, and with what consequences. The article focuses on organization theory. It first reviews the contributions of this theoretical lens to higher education studies, commenting on current problems and future prospects. Then, drawing on a study of the influence of global university rankings on the strategic management of Canadian universities, it demonstrates the explanatory power of organizational frameworks regarding the dynamics of change occurring at universities due to a major issue in contemporary higher education as rankings. Special attention is given to resource dependence theory and network influences. The article concludes with the suggestion that given evidence of epistemic authority, organization theory provides valuable investigative tools for exploring the inner workings of universities and mobilizing these fundamental organizations to address fundamental sociological concerns such as power, social justice, and sustainable development.Keywords: organizational sociology, organization theory, open systems models, network influences, higher education, rankings, Canada
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".