Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 755

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Technicians in the Workplace: Ethnographic Evidence for Bringing Work into Organizational Studies

Barley, Stephen R.·1996·Administrative Science Quarterly

Abstract

The work reported herein was supported under the Educational Research and Development Center program, agreement #R1 17000011-91, CFDA 84.117Q as administered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The findings and opinions expressed in this report do not reflect the position or policies of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement or the U.S. Department of Education. This paper has profited tremendously from comments offered by Dan Brass, Mark Mizruchi, Bonnie Nelsen, Christine Oliver, Linda Johanson, and the three anonymous scholars who reviewed the manuscript. This paper lays the groundwork for new models of work and relations of production that reflect changes in the division of labor and occupational structure of a postindustrial economy. It demonstrates how new ideal-typical occupations can be constructed, drawing on a set of ethnographies to propose an empirically grounded model of technicians' work. The paper focuses on two questions: What do technicians do and what do they know? The answers constitute a first cut at the ideal type, technician. The paper then turns to evidence of the difficulties that arise when organizations employ technicians but fail to appreciate the nature of their work. It closes by showing how a contextually derived model of technicians' work enables us to evaluate why some recent trends in organizing are congruent with an increasingly technical workforce, why others may be misguided, and why organizations are likely to face challenges that organizational theorists have but vaguely anticipated. The paper shows that the emergence of technicians' work may signify a shift to a more horizontal division of substantive expertise that undermines the logic of vertical organizing on which most organizational theory and practice still rests.'

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2393937

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 755

Metadata

Authors
Barley, S. R.
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1996-09
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
404
ISSN
0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2084575249
Cited by
755
References
1
FWCI
16.44
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Technicians in the Workplace: Ethnographic Evidence for Bringing Work into Organizational Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2393937
The paper
Barley, S. R. (1996). Technicians in the Workplace: Ethnographic Evidence for Bringing Work into Organizational Studies. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393937

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.