Summary
Contents
Subject index
"It is now three decades since the "new"institutionalism burst on the intellectual scene and a most appropriate time to take stock of missteps, accomplishments, and future directions. This theoretical thrust has revitalized many scholarly arenas across the social sciences, but none more so then organization studies. Royston Greenwood and his co-editors have assembled a stellar stable of scholars who collectively provide a comprehensive assessment if this vibrant field."—W. Richard Scott, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University"Institutional theory has become the dominant conversation in organization theory. In this volume many of its leading exponents show where it is going, what it can do and how it engages with related fields."—Stewart Clegg, Aston Business School and University of Technology, Sydney"This Handbook is "must reading" for any organization and management scholar. It provides a timely and comprehensive update of institutional theory and its relationships with other organization theories."—Andrew H. Van de Ven, Vernon Heath Professor of Organizational Innovation and Change, Carlson School of Management, University of MinnesotaInstitutional theory lies at the heart of organizational theory, yet until now, no book has successfully taken stock of this important and wide ranging theoretical perspective. With insight and clarity, the editors of this handbook have collected and arranged papers so the readers are provided with a map of the field and pointed in the direction of new and emerging themes. The academics who have contributed to this handbook are respected internationally and represent a cross section of expert organization theorists, sociologists and political scientists. Chapters are a rich mix of theory, how to conduct institutional organizational analysis and empirical work.
The Work of Meanings in Institutional Processes and Thinking
The Work of Meanings in Institutional Processes and Thinking
The interest in the role of meanings in institutional theory is both old and new. While meanings were at the heart of early neo-institutional thinking (e.g. Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Zucker, 1977; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), and while they constitute much of its unique contribution vis-á-vis other open-system theories (Scott, 2007), the very exploration of meaning was somewhat neglected later on, especially in the empirical inquiry of institutions. Thus, our understanding of the work of meaning in institutional processes had been limited (Dobbin, 1994a; Friedland & Alford, 1991; Hasselbladh & Kallinilos, 2000).
Lately, however, we have seen a renewed empirical and theoretical interest in the ideational aspects of institutional processes. What do these studies tell us about institutional processes that we have not known before based on studies that focus on the more tangible - structural and practical -aspects of institutions? Answering this question will be my main concern in this chapter. Based on a review of empirical studies and conceptual formulations, I will argue that studies that examine the dynamics of meanings in institutionalization reinterpret the social constructionist approach from which institutional theory had originated, and offer a unique perspective that complements the mainstream studies. Specifically, the focus on meanings highlights the particular, contextual, the political, and the on-going processes involved in institutionalization.
My aim is twofold: Offering a reading of institutional processes as depicted by studies that deal with meanings; and, on another level of analysis, point to the institutionalization of the study of meanings within our discipline. I start with a short exposition of what I mean by ‘meaning’ and the procedure I followed in gathering those works which constitute the data set for this review. I will then offer a reading of this collection of empirical and theoretical works, mainly by analyzing the notion of institutional processes they offer. Finally, I will discuss a few directions for further research.
The Meaning of ‘Meaning’
While the role of meanings was central to early theoretical formulations of neo-institutional thinking, to date we do not have an agreed upon terminology for ‘meaning.’ Following Meyer and Rowan's (1977) ‘rational myths’ - the shared meanings and understandings associated with social structures - other related concepts abound in the literature, including ‘analogies’ (Davis, Diekmann & Tinsley, 1994), ‘discourse’ (Phillips, Lawrence & Hardy, 2004), ‘legitimating accounts’ (Creed, Scully & Austin, 2002), ‘linguistic framing’ (Hirsch, 1986), ‘management rhetoric’ or ‘rationales’ (Kelly & Dobbin, 1998), ‘rationalities’ or ‘institutional myths’ (Townley, 2002), and ‘theorizing’ (Greenwood, Suddaby & Hinings, 2002; Strang & Meyer, 1993). Given this polyphony of terms (apparently with some nuanced yet important differences between them), I chose to craft this review using a bottom-up approach. Rather than offer a clear-cut definition of ‘meaning’ and point to its implications to institutional theory, I follow the way meanings were dealt with by researchers in the field of institutional theory - publishing and presenting their work within the community of institutional scholars. Through a content analysis of published works that deal with ‘meaning’ and institutionalization, I came to (one possible) understanding of what institutional scholars consider as ‘meaning’ and its role in institutional processes.
...
- Loading...
Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL
-
Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life -
Read modern, diverse business cases
-
Explore hundreds of books and reference titles
Read next
More like this
Sage Recommends
We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.
Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches