Infrapolitical resistance to management control in the home workplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we examine how workers resist management controls in the home workplace. Drawing on Scott's (1985, 1990) theorization about the everyday forms of resistance, especially his seminal concepts of infrapolitical resistance and hidden transcripts, and mobilizing a netnographic approach, we examine the comments posted on Reddit during a 10-month period, in which workers talk about their resistance to the ways in which they are controlled in the home-based work environment. We uncover six hidden transcripts representing workers' infrapolitical resistance to management control in the home workplace, which we categorize into two sets: resistance thoughts and beliefs and individual acts of resistance. Home office workers describe and discuss their resistance attitudes and ideas around 1) the new limits of acceptable levels and types of controls, 2) the very worth of the managerial role, and 3) employers' cultural controls. Also, home office workers resist via their actions by 4) performing “empty labor; ” 5) quitting their job in response to return-to-office mandates; and 6) selectively meeting productivity-related controls. Bringing a new empirical site − the home as a workplace − to the management control literature, we theorize about the ways in which home office workers transform productivity into a site of resistance, turn the control gaze back on the managers, and use the home office to resist controls.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".