Bibliographic record
Abstract
I came into this dialogue “sideways. ” I was neither a panel member nor did I take part in the subsequent conversation because I came late to the Academy symposium, missing all of Jennifer’s presentation and most of Tammar’s. I did really enjoy the part of the conversation on institutional theory and organizational culture for which I was able to be present. Moreover, it was good to sit and listen to others. However, when I got back to Alberta I found myself reflecting on some aspects of the session and so sent an email to Jennifer, Mary Jo, Majken, and Tammar to share my reflections with them. Those reflections must have struck a chord as, somewhat to my surprise, I was asked to take part in this dialogue! So, my aim is to develop further the very outline remarks that I made in my email. The questions that are posed in this dialogue primarily relate to the absence of interplay between cultural studies of organizations and institutional approaches and how this might be changed. The issue was raised, “Why don’t organi-zational scholars who study ‘culture ’ also study ‘institutions,’ and vice versa? ” Of course, the answer might be that they do, but they use different concepts. It is this possibility, with respect to institutional theory, that I wish to explore here. This situation arises from increasing interest in beliefs, val-ues, and systems of meaning and the way they shape fields, organizations, and institutional work. Indeed, Greenwood, Oliver, Sahlin, and Suddaby (2008) suggest that there is a stream of institutional theory that is cognitive and social con-structivist in emphasis. The Greenwood, Oliver, Sahlin, et al. (2008) introductory chapter in the Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism outlines a number of stages in the development of institutional theory. Much of the development has been from a rich por-trayal of institutional fields and institutionalized organizations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977), through a somewhat limited notion of institutional theory (see Mizruchi & Fein, 1999), to an increasing rediscovery of the original richness of concepts and processes within the theory (cf.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.387 | 0.254 |
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".