Towards a flatter ontology of institutional logics: How logics relate in situations of institutional complexity

Abstract

The institutional logics approach is a powerful lens with which to examine and understand contexts in which norms and conceptions are multiple, unclear or in flux. While logics at the societal level have been well elaborated and are, in the most part, widely understood and accepted, at the field level logics are not necessarily so clear. Field frames distort, merge and confuse the societal logic as field actors negotiate, rebalance, bridge and interpret logics in a recursively constitutive process. We review research in two institutionally complex fields—higher education and healthcare - that employs an institutional logics lens. We identify and categorize institutional logics arising in these two fields and ask how these field-level logics relate to each other and to societal-level ideal-type logics. We ask what roles ideologies play in mediating relations between the field-level logics and what are the mechanisms by which this happens. We find that, at the field level, societal logics can appear as field-level instantiations or merge to form hybrids. New field-level logics can also emerge, but often these are confused with ideologies, thus limiting the theory-building potential of the institutional logics approach. We identify and begin to resolve confusion between logics and ideologies, highlighting the role of ideologies in mediating the relationships between logics at the field level. We advocate for, and pave the way towards, a new research agenda enabled by a flatter ontology of institutional logics that sees a horizontal relationship between logics as well as a vertical relationship between logics and actors.