组织研究中的社区:回顾与制度逻辑视角

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
A. Georgiou, Daniel Arenas
{"title":"组织研究中的社区:回顾与制度逻辑视角","authors":"A. Georgiou, Daniel Arenas","doi":"10.1177/26317877231153189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"More than a decade ago, Thornton and colleagues added community to the inter-institutional system and argued that the community logic shapes individual and organizational behavior, determines organizing principles, and influences community–organization relationships. In justifying this addition and defining the ideal type, they drew mostly upon the literature on local communities and organizations. However, the increasing relevance of other types of communities to organization studies necessitates a re-examination and further specification of this framework. This article starts with a review of 172 papers from highly ranked organization and management journals over the last 30 years and summarizes insights on four types of communities for which discussion has flourished: communities of place, of practice, of users, and of firms. This is followed by pattern matching to explore whether these four types follow the initial description of the community logic. We find four variants of the community logic, one for each type of community. We show that all the reviewed types organize around a common boundary, which yields a new definition of the community logic. This commonality also offers scope for comparative research and reconceptualization of community–organization relationships. Furthermore, by specifying the organizing principles that vary, we extend previous research and explicate the main underpinnings of community organizing. The paper ends by suggesting avenues for future research that further embrace an institutional logics perspective on communities.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Community in Organizational Research: A Review and an Institutional Logics Perspective\",\"authors\":\"A. Georgiou, Daniel Arenas\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/26317877231153189\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"More than a decade ago, Thornton and colleagues added community to the inter-institutional system and argued that the community logic shapes individual and organizational behavior, determines organizing principles, and influences community–organization relationships. In justifying this addition and defining the ideal type, they drew mostly upon the literature on local communities and organizations. However, the increasing relevance of other types of communities to organization studies necessitates a re-examination and further specification of this framework. This article starts with a review of 172 papers from highly ranked organization and management journals over the last 30 years and summarizes insights on four types of communities for which discussion has flourished: communities of place, of practice, of users, and of firms. This is followed by pattern matching to explore whether these four types follow the initial description of the community logic. We find four variants of the community logic, one for each type of community. We show that all the reviewed types organize around a common boundary, which yields a new definition of the community logic. This commonality also offers scope for comparative research and reconceptualization of community–organization relationships. Furthermore, by specifying the organizing principles that vary, we extend previous research and explicate the main underpinnings of community organizing. The paper ends by suggesting avenues for future research that further embrace an institutional logics perspective on communities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877231153189\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877231153189","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

早在十多年前,Thornton等人就将社区加入到机构间系统中,认为社区逻辑塑造了个人和组织行为,决定了组织原则,并影响了社区-组织关系。在证明这一增加和定义理想类型的过程中,他们主要借鉴了当地社区和组织的文献。然而,其他类型的社区与组织研究的相关性日益增加,需要对这一框架进行重新审查和进一步规范。本文首先回顾了过去30年来来自排名较高的组织和管理期刊的172篇论文,并总结了对四种社区的见解,这些社区的讨论非常活跃:地点社区、实践社区、用户社区和公司社区。接下来是模式匹配,以探索这四种类型是否符合社区逻辑的初始描述。我们发现了社区逻辑的四种变体,每种变体对应一种社区。我们展示了所有审查的类型都围绕一个公共边界组织,这产生了社区逻辑的新定义。这种共性也为社区组织关系的比较研究和重新概念化提供了空间。此外,通过指定不同的组织原则,我们扩展了先前的研究并阐明了社区组织的主要基础。论文最后提出了未来研究的途径,进一步拥抱社区的制度逻辑视角。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Community in Organizational Research: A Review and an Institutional Logics Perspective
More than a decade ago, Thornton and colleagues added community to the inter-institutional system and argued that the community logic shapes individual and organizational behavior, determines organizing principles, and influences community–organization relationships. In justifying this addition and defining the ideal type, they drew mostly upon the literature on local communities and organizations. However, the increasing relevance of other types of communities to organization studies necessitates a re-examination and further specification of this framework. This article starts with a review of 172 papers from highly ranked organization and management journals over the last 30 years and summarizes insights on four types of communities for which discussion has flourished: communities of place, of practice, of users, and of firms. This is followed by pattern matching to explore whether these four types follow the initial description of the community logic. We find four variants of the community logic, one for each type of community. We show that all the reviewed types organize around a common boundary, which yields a new definition of the community logic. This commonality also offers scope for comparative research and reconceptualization of community–organization relationships. Furthermore, by specifying the organizing principles that vary, we extend previous research and explicate the main underpinnings of community organizing. The paper ends by suggesting avenues for future research that further embrace an institutional logics perspective on communities.
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
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