第七章建构作为行动者的组织:制度逻辑研究中研究设计变化的启示

Guillermo Casasnovas, M. Ventresca
{"title":"第七章建构作为行动者的组织:制度逻辑研究中研究设计变化的启示","authors":"Guillermo Casasnovas, M. Ventresca","doi":"10.1108/S0733-558X20190000058009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent research develops theory and evidence to understand how organizations come to be seen as “actors” with specified features and properties, a core concern for phenomenological institutionalism. The authors use evidence from changes in research designs in the organizational study of institutional logics as an empirical strategy to add fresh evidence to the debates about the institutional construction of organizations as actors. The case is the research literature on the institutional logics perspective, a literature in which organizational and institutional theorists grapple with long-time social theory questions about nature and context of action and more contemporary debates about the dynamics of social orders. With rapid growth since the early 1990s, this research program has elaborated and proliferated in ways meant to advance the study of societal orders, frames, and practices in diverse inter- and intra-organizational contexts. The study identifies two substantive trends over the observation period: A shift in research design from field-level studies to organization-specific contexts, where conflicts are prominent in the organization, and a shift in the conception of logic transitions, originally from one dominant logic to another, then more attention to co-existence or blending of logics. Based on this evidence, the authors identify a typology of four available research genres that mark a changed conception of organizations as actors. The case of institutional logics makes visible the link between research designs and research outcomes, and it provides new evidence for the institutional processes that construct organizational actorhood.","PeriodicalId":419818,"journal":{"name":"Agents, Actors, Actorhood: Institutional Perspectives on the Nature of Agency, Action, and Authority","volume":"365 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chapter 7 Constructing Organizations as Actors: Insights from Changes in Research Designs in the Study of Institutional Logics\",\"authors\":\"Guillermo Casasnovas, M. Ventresca\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/S0733-558X20190000058009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recent research develops theory and evidence to understand how organizations come to be seen as “actors” with specified features and properties, a core concern for phenomenological institutionalism. The authors use evidence from changes in research designs in the organizational study of institutional logics as an empirical strategy to add fresh evidence to the debates about the institutional construction of organizations as actors. The case is the research literature on the institutional logics perspective, a literature in which organizational and institutional theorists grapple with long-time social theory questions about nature and context of action and more contemporary debates about the dynamics of social orders. With rapid growth since the early 1990s, this research program has elaborated and proliferated in ways meant to advance the study of societal orders, frames, and practices in diverse inter- and intra-organizational contexts. The study identifies two substantive trends over the observation period: A shift in research design from field-level studies to organization-specific contexts, where conflicts are prominent in the organization, and a shift in the conception of logic transitions, originally from one dominant logic to another, then more attention to co-existence or blending of logics. Based on this evidence, the authors identify a typology of four available research genres that mark a changed conception of organizations as actors. The case of institutional logics makes visible the link between research designs and research outcomes, and it provides new evidence for the institutional processes that construct organizational actorhood.\",\"PeriodicalId\":419818,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agents, Actors, Actorhood: Institutional Perspectives on the Nature of Agency, Action, and Authority\",\"volume\":\"365 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agents, Actors, Actorhood: Institutional Perspectives on the Nature of Agency, Action, and Authority\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000058009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agents, Actors, Actorhood: Institutional Perspectives on the Nature of Agency, Action, and Authority","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000058009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

最近的研究发展了理论和证据来理解组织如何被视为具有特定特征和属性的“行动者”,这是现象学制度主义的核心关注点。作者利用制度逻辑的组织研究中研究设计变化的证据作为一种实证策略,为关于组织作为行动者的制度建构的争论增添了新的证据。这种情况是关于制度逻辑视角的研究文献,在这些文献中,组织和制度理论家努力解决关于行动的性质和背景的长期社会理论问题,以及关于社会秩序动态的当代辩论。自20世纪90年代初以来,随着快速发展,该研究项目以各种方式阐述和扩散,旨在推进对社会秩序、框架和实践的研究,在不同的组织间和组织内背景下。该研究确定了观察期间的两个实质性趋势:研究设计从实地层面的研究转变为组织特定背景的研究,其中冲突在组织中很突出;逻辑转换概念的转变,最初从一种主导逻辑转变为另一种,然后更多地关注逻辑的共存或混合。基于这一证据,作者确定了四种可用研究类型的类型学,这些类型标志着组织作为行动者的概念发生了变化。制度逻辑的案例揭示了研究设计与研究成果之间的联系,并为构建组织行为性的制度过程提供了新的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Chapter 7 Constructing Organizations as Actors: Insights from Changes in Research Designs in the Study of Institutional Logics
Recent research develops theory and evidence to understand how organizations come to be seen as “actors” with specified features and properties, a core concern for phenomenological institutionalism. The authors use evidence from changes in research designs in the organizational study of institutional logics as an empirical strategy to add fresh evidence to the debates about the institutional construction of organizations as actors. The case is the research literature on the institutional logics perspective, a literature in which organizational and institutional theorists grapple with long-time social theory questions about nature and context of action and more contemporary debates about the dynamics of social orders. With rapid growth since the early 1990s, this research program has elaborated and proliferated in ways meant to advance the study of societal orders, frames, and practices in diverse inter- and intra-organizational contexts. The study identifies two substantive trends over the observation period: A shift in research design from field-level studies to organization-specific contexts, where conflicts are prominent in the organization, and a shift in the conception of logic transitions, originally from one dominant logic to another, then more attention to co-existence or blending of logics. Based on this evidence, the authors identify a typology of four available research genres that mark a changed conception of organizations as actors. The case of institutional logics makes visible the link between research designs and research outcomes, and it provides new evidence for the institutional processes that construct organizational actorhood.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信