Call for Papers
A major trend in institutional theory over the past decade has been to explore and (re-)conceptualize the micro-dynamics at play in wider institutional processes (Powell & Colyvas, 2008; Powell & Rerup, 2017), prompting scholars to look outside the traditional frontiers of the field and engage with other research traditions. Our aim with this sub-theme is to strengthen the quality and coherence of research on the micro-dynamics of institutions by highlighting opportunities of integrating insights from various schools of thought. These include communicative institutionalism, practice driven institutionalism, inhabited institutionalism, institutional entrepreneurship, institutional work, and an emotional and embodied version of institutions:
Communicative institutionalism focuses on communication as the means whereby speakers and addresses share, enact and co-produce institutional meaning in everyday encounters (Cornelissen et al., 2015); building on a broad understanding of “communication” as both performative (Cooren et al., 2011; Green, 2004; Green & Li, 2011), and transmissive (Lammers, 2011), and including multiple modes (Cartel et al., 2018b; Jancsary et al., 2018; Meyer et al., 2018).
Practice driven institutionalism builds on the research tradition of the sociology of practice (e.g. Bourdieu, 1977; Giddens, 1984; Schatzki, 2001) and focuses on the everyday work of practitioners (Smets et al., 2017; see also Smets et al., 2015; Suddaby et al., 2013). This stream of research views institutions as the dynamic product of situated practices that both enact institutionalized ways of doing and generate new ones (Lounsbury & Crumley, 2007; Smets et al., 2012; Smets & Jarzabkowski, 2013).
Inhabited institutionalism, rooted in interactionist sociology (e.g. Becker, 1982; Blumer, 1969; Goffman, 1967), focuses on local interactions among people at work (Hallett & Ventresca, 2006; Hallett, 2010; see also Barley & Tolbert, 1997), viewing institutions as both reproduced and altered in interaction by their inhabitants (Hallett & Ventresca, 2006).
Institutional entrepreneurship focuses on how embedded actors generate new institutions by crafting and implementing organizational forms and practices that break with established institutions (Battilana et al., 2009; DiMaggio, 1988; Garud et al., 2007)). This stream of research emphasizes ideation, actors’ social position and field conditions (Battilana, 2006; Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006; Maguire et al., 2004).
Institutional work also relates to actors’ agency, yet attempts to offer a more balanced and relational account of agency and structure through attention to collective practices of creating, maintaining, and disrupting institutions (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). This stream of research construes institutions as the constantly changing sum of distributed inputs of institutional work (Lawrence et al., 2013; Lawrence et al., 2009).
A last stream of research introduces emotions and embodied experience in institutional analysis (Voronov & Vince, 2012; Zietsma & Toubiana, 2018), considering institutions as both constituted by people’s emotions (e.g. Cartel et al., 2018a; Fan & Zietsma, 2017; Wright et al., 2017) and constituting people’s emotions (e.g. de Rond & Lok, 2016; Friedland, 2018; Jarvis, 2017; Voronov & Weber, 2016).
These developments in conceptualizing the micro-dynamics of institutions are stimulating and promising. Altogether, they have built a more nuanced and realistic view on actors, agency and actorhood in institutional analysis. The concept of actor has evolved from an undifferentiated entity – either individual or organizational – responding to the social order in a stylized way to a myriad of unique persons that experience institutions through a range of singular embodied social interactions.
A challenge facing these recent developments, however, is an insufficient articulation with one another. Institutional theory is often criticized for losing its core due to ever-expansion, and the variety of approaches to its micro-dynamics may cause further dispersion and internal contradictions. Thus, we see a unique and timely opportunity to foster a fruitful dialogue among these approaches. While each of them clearly developed within different intellectual traditions, it is worthwhile to explore their differences and similarities in relation to core ontological (e.g. individual vs relational, strategic vs emergent) and epistemological considerations (e.g. internal processes, e.g. thoughts and feelings) versus externally observable features (e.g. verbal and non-verbal communication and behaviours). Discussing how they relate to each other and to the earlier, foundational texts in institutional theory; reflecting on how to empirically capture micro-dynamics and still offer broad-level institutional insights will stimulate a constructive dialogue that will set the basis, so we hope, for an integrated micro-perspective of institutions.
We invite colleagues to contribute to this endeavor with conceptual work, empirical studies, and methodological reflections.
- Battilana, J. (2006): “Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals’ social position.” Organization, 13 (5), 653–676.
- Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009): “How Actors Change Institutions: Towards a Theory of Institutional Entrepreneurship.” Academy of Management Annals, 3 (1), 65–107.
- Barley, S.R., & Tolbert, P.S. (1997): “Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Links between Action and Institution.” Organization Studies, 18 (1), 93–117.
- Becker, H. (1982): Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Blumer, H. (1969): Symbolic Interactionism: Perspecive and Method. Berkley: University of California Press.
- Bourdieu, P. (1977): Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Cartel, M., Boxenbaum, E., & Aggeri, F. (2018a): “Just for fun! How experimental spaces stimulate innovation in institutionalized fields.” Organization Studies, 40 (1), 65–92.
- Cartel, M., Colombero, S., & Boxenbaum, E. (2018b): “Towards a Multimodal Model of Theorization Processes.” In: M.A. Höllerer, T. Daudigeos & D. Jancsary (eds.): Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, 153–182.
- Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., Cornelissen, J.P., & Clark, T. (2011): “Communication, Organizing and Organization: An Overview and Introduction to the Special Issue.” Organization Studies, 32 (9), 1149–1170.
- Cornelissen, J.P., Durand, R., Fiss, P.C., Lammers, J.C., & Vaara, E. (2015): “Putting Communication Front and Center in Institutional Theory and Analysis.” Academy of Management Review, 40 (1), 10–27.
- de Rond, M., & Lok, J. (2016): “Some Things Can Never Be Unseen: The Role of Context in Psychological Injury at War.” The Academy of Management Journal, 59 (6), 1965–1993.
- DiMaggio, P. (1988): “Interest and agency in institutional theory.” In: L. Zucker (ed.): Institutional Patterns and Culture. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company, 3–22.
- Fan, G.H., & Zietsma, C. (2017): “Constructing a Shared Governance Logic: The Role of Emotions in Enabling Dually Embedded Agency.” The Academy of Management Journal, 60 (6), 2321–2351.
- Friedland, R. (2018): “Moving Institutional Logics Forward: Emotion and Meaningful Material Practice.” Organization Studies, 39 (4), 515–542.
- Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007): “Institutional Entrepreneurship as Embedded Agency: An Introduction to the Special Issue.” Organization Studies, 28 (7), 957–969.
- Giddens, A. (1984): The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Goffman, E. (1967): Interaction Ritual. New York: Anchor Books.
- Green, S.E. (2004): “A Rhetorical Theory of Diffusion.” Academy of Management Review, 29 (4), 653–669.
- Green, S.E., & Li, Y. (2011): “Rhetorical Institutionalism: Language, Agency, and Structure in Institutional Theory since Alvesson 1993.” Journal of Management Studies, 48 (7), 1662–1697.
- Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006): “Institutional Entrepreneurship in Mature Fields: The Big Five Accounting Firms.” The Academy of Management Journal, 49 (1), 27–48.
- Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M.J. (2006): “Inhabited Institutions: Social Interactions and Organizational Forms in Gouldner’s Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy.” Theory and Society, 35 (2), 213–236.
- Jancsary, D., Meyer, R.E., Höllerer, M.A., & Boxenbaum, E. (2018): “Institutions As Multimodal Accomplishments: Towards the Analysis of Visual Registers.” In: M.A. Höllerer, T. Daudigeos & D. Jancsary (eds.): Multimodality, Meaning, and Institutions. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 54A. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 87–117.
- Jarvis, L.C. (2017): “Feigned versus Felt: Feigning Behaviors and the Dynamics of Institutional Logics.” Academy of Management Review, 42 (2), 306–333.
- Lammers, J.C. (2011): “How Institutions Communicate: Institutional Messages, Institutional Logics, and Organizational Communication.” Management Communication Quarterly, 25 (1), 154–182.
- Lawrence, T.B., & Suddaby, R. (2006): “Institutions and Institutional Work.” In: S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. Lawrence & W.R. Nord (eds.): The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies. London: SAGE Publications, 215–254.
- Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E.T. (2007): “New Practice Creation: An Institutional Perspective on Innovation.” Organization Studies, 28 (7), 993–1012.
- Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T.B. (2004): “Institutional Entrepreneurship in Emerging Fields: HIV/AIDS Treatment Advocacy in Canada.” The Academy of Management Journal, 47 (5), 657–679.
- Meyer, R.E, Jancsary, D., Höllerer, M.A, & Boxenbaum, E. (2018): “The Role of Verbal and Visual Text in the Process of Institutionalization.” Academy of Management Review, 43 (3), 392–418.
- Powell, W.W., & Colyvas, J.A. (2008): “Microfoundations of Institutional Theory.” In: R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby & K. Sahlin (eds.): The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: SAGE Publications, 276–298.
- Powell, W.W., & Rerup, C. (2017): “Opening the Black Box: The Microfoundations of Institutions.” In: R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T.B. Lawrence & R.E. Meyer (eds.): The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: SAGE Publications, 311–335.
- Schatzki, T.R. (2001): “Introduction: practice theory.” In:T.R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina & E. von Savigny (eds.): The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge, 1–14.
- Smets, M., Aristidou, A., & Whittington, R. (2017): “Towards a Practice-Driven Institutionalism.” In: R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T.B. Lawrence & R.E. Meyer (eds.): The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: SAGE Publications, 365–389.
- Smets, M., Greenwood, R., & Lounsbury, M. (2015): “An institutional perspective on strategy as practice.” In: D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl & E. Vaara (eds.): Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambride University Press, 283–300.
- Smets, M., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2013): “Reconstructing institutional complexity in practice: A relational model of institutional work and complexity.” Human Relations, 66 (10), 1279–1309.
- Smets, M., Morris, T., & Greenwood, R. (2012): “From Practice to Field: A Multilevel Model of Practice-Driven Institutional Change.” The Academy of Management Journal, 55 (4), 877–904.
- Suddaby, R., Seidl, D., & Lê, J.K. (2013): “Strategy-as-practice meets neo-institutional theory.” Strategic Organization, 11 (3), 329–344.
- Voronov, M., & Vince, R. (2012): “Integrating Emotions into the Analysis of Institutional Work.” Academy of Management Review, 37 (1), 58–81.
- Voronov, M., & Weber, K. (2016): “The Heart of Institutions: Emotional Competence and Institutional Actorhood.” Academy of Management Review, 41 (3), 456–478.
- Wright, A.L., Zammuto, R.F., & Liesch, P.W. (2017): “Maintaining the Values of a Profession: Institutional Work and Moral Emotions in the Emergency Department.” The Academy of Management Journal, 60 (1), 200–237.
- Zietsma, C., & Toubiana, M. (2018): “The Valuable, the Constitutive, and the Energetic: Exploring the impact and importance of studying emotions and institutions.” Organization Studies, 39 (4), 427–443.
- Zilber, T.B. (2014): “Beyond a single organization: Challenges and opportunities in doing field level ethnography.” Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 3 (1), 96–113.
- Zilber, T.B. (2016): “Studying organizational fields through ethnography.” In. K.D. Elsbach & R.M. Kramer (eds.): Handbook of Qualitative Organizational Research. New York: Routledge, 86–95.
- Zilber, T.B. (2018): “A Call for ‘Strong’ Multimodal Research in Institutional Theory.” In: M.A. Höllerer, T. Daudigeos & D. Jancsary (eds.): Multimodality, Meaning, and Institutions. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 54A. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 63–84.