The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Zooming In and Out: Studying Practices by Switching Theoretical Lenses and Trailing Connections
Abstract
This article contributes to re-specifying a number of the phenomena of interest to organizational studies in terms of patterns of socio-material practices and their effects. It does so by outlining a vocabulary and strategy that make up a framework for theorizing work and organizational practices. The vocabulary is based on number of sensitizing concepts that connote practice as an open-ended, heterogeneous accomplishment which takes place within a specific horizon of sense and a set of concerns which the practice itself brings to bear. The strategy is based on the metaphorical movement of ‘zooming in’ and ‘zooming out of’ practice. The zooming in and out are obtained through switching theoretical lenses and re-positioning in the field, so that certain aspects of the practice are fore-grounded while others are bracketed. Building on the results of an extended study of telemedicine, the article discusses in detail the different elements of the framework and how it enhances our capacity to re-present practice. The article concludes with some considerations on how the proposed approach can assist us in advancing the research agenda of organizational and work studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 35,324
Bourdieu, P. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9781503621749 · Cited by 17,271
Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory
Latour, B. (2005) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199256044.001.0001 · Cited by 16,778
Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2007) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v12i4.1772 · Cited by 1,647
Cited by
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421 · Cited by 1,116
Practice as the Site of Knowing: Insights from the Field of Telemedicine
Nicolini, D. (2011) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0556 · Cited by 451
Self-citationLebovitz, S., Levina, N., & Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2021) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2021/16564 · Cited by 49
Seeing the Forest and the Trees: How a Systems Perspective Informs Paradox Research
Schad, J., & Bansal, P. (2018) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12398 · Cited by 266
Greenhalgh, T., Swinglehurst, D., & Stones, R. (2014) · Health Services and Delivery Research · doi:10.3310/hsdr02390 · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Nicolini, D.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-12
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1391-1418
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W2098319730
- Cited by
- 1,017
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 34.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.