The relation of standards and power in management and organization research: Core notions and alternative avenues

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Sarah Langer
{"title":"The relation of standards and power in management and organization research: Core notions and alternative avenues","authors":"Sarah Langer","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper explores how management and organization research has shed light on the relation between standards and power. The narrative literature review intersects so far unconnected categorizations from standardization and power literatures to systematically map out the broad knowledge structure of the power-related literature on standardization. As a result, the paper details six power-related notions of standardization. Building on the review, the paper summarizes neglected issues and suggests new avenues for future research. The analysis reveals that research widely tends toward either/or conceptions in terms of the empowering or disempowering dynamics of standardization. To descend from this dichotomous perspective in future research, the paper finally recommends exploring the dialectics of standardization in more detail: first, by analyzing standards as a reflection of existing power structures and contestations; second, by investigating standards as subject to power logics and interests; and third, by scrutinizing standardization as the dynamic interplay of powerlessness and powerfulness.</p>","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"25 4","pages":"647-665"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijmr.12325","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Management Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12325","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper explores how management and organization research has shed light on the relation between standards and power. The narrative literature review intersects so far unconnected categorizations from standardization and power literatures to systematically map out the broad knowledge structure of the power-related literature on standardization. As a result, the paper details six power-related notions of standardization. Building on the review, the paper summarizes neglected issues and suggests new avenues for future research. The analysis reveals that research widely tends toward either/or conceptions in terms of the empowering or disempowering dynamics of standardization. To descend from this dichotomous perspective in future research, the paper finally recommends exploring the dialectics of standardization in more detail: first, by analyzing standards as a reflection of existing power structures and contestations; second, by investigating standards as subject to power logics and interests; and third, by scrutinizing standardization as the dynamic interplay of powerlessness and powerfulness.

管理和组织研究中标准与权力的关系:核心概念和替代途径
本文探讨了管理和组织研究如何揭示标准与权力之间的关系。叙事性文献综述将标准化与权力文献这两个迄今为止互不关联的分类交叉起来,系统地勾勒出标准化相关权力文献的广泛知识结构。因此,本文详细介绍了六个与权力相关的标准化概念。在回顾的基础上,总结了被忽视的问题,并提出了未来研究的新途径。分析表明,在标准化的授权或不授权的动态方面,研究广泛倾向于要么/要么概念。为了在未来的研究中从这种二分法的角度出发,本文最后建议更详细地探索标准化的辩证法:首先,通过分析标准作为现有权力结构和争论的反映;第二,通过考察受制于权力逻辑和利益的标准;第三,通过审视标准化作为无力和强大的动态相互作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Management Reviews (IJMR) stands as the premier global review journal in Organisation and Management Studies (OMS). Its published papers aim to provide substantial conceptual contributions, acting as a strategic platform for new research directions. IJMR plays a pivotal role in influencing how OMS scholars conceptualize research in their respective fields. The journal's reviews critically assess the state of knowledge in specific fields, appraising the conceptual foundations of competing paradigms to advance current and future research in the area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信