How is a network identity developed and legitimised over time? A sensemaking approach to analysing social purpose organisations’ networks.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly SPOs are forming networks in order to remain sustainable and achieve their social missions within an increasingly competitive environment. The formation of a network can be considered a process, which involves a number of strategic actions and negotiations which challenge individual organisational identities as they seek to co-create value for the collective; consequently, developing a network identity. The concept of identity is ambiguous within literature yet plays an important role in influencing actions, behaviours and perceptions of both self and others. Network identity is considered to be distinct and developed over time through interactions and relationships with actors who seek to achieve a common goal. Whilst literature recognises that identity is a multi-level construct, limited research to date has explored multi-level identity linkages and in particular how network identity is formed and legitimised within a SPO context. The legitimacy of a network identity is important, since it can not only impact the outcomes of the network through the absence of a common identity shared between network members, but can impact the networks perceived credibility to external stakeholders This research helps contribute to new knowledge through exploring the following research question: How is an SPO network identity legitimised? We utilise the concepts of pragmatic, moral and cognitive legitimacy to theorise and develop explanatory reasoning of how an SPO network identity is legitimised. We take a process-based view of identity construction, drawing upon both retrospective and prospective sensemaking approaches. Through our analysis of 3 SPO business networks, the findings reveal how SPOs construe and adapt their situated identities over time as they progress towards the desired state of developing a network identity which is considered legitimate within their social context and external environment. The findings identified that the legitimacy of an SPO network identity is governed by both utilitarian and normative orientations that are understood and manifested through retrospective and prospective sensemaking processes. We differentiate particular identity legitimisation complexities at three stages of context including the network-as-form, the network-as-entity, and the network-as-interaction. By illuminating network activities and processes accomplished through sensemaking, our findings contribute a rich, empirical understanding of how the distinctive identity of an SPO network is legitimised over time. Moreover, we illuminate the spill-over effects of legitimising a network at different stages, thereby offering the potential for managerial savings in time and effort needed to build legitimacy.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".