The concept of an institutional field is one of the cornerstones of institutional theory, and yet the concept has been stretched both theoretically and empirically, making consolidation of findings across multiple studies more difficult. In this article, we review the literature and analyze empirical studies of institutional fields to build scaffolding for the cumulation of research on institutional fields. Our review revealed two types of fields: exchange and issue fields, with three subtypes of each. We describe their characteristics. Subsequently, we review field conditions in the extant literature and develop a typology based on two dimensions: the extent of elaboration of institutional infrastructure and the extent to which there is an agreed upon prioritization of logics. We discuss the implications of field types and conditions for isomorphism, agency, and field change, based on a review of the literature that revealed six pathways of field change and the factors affecting them. We outline a research agenda based on our review highlighting the need for consolidation of field studies and identify several outstanding issues that are in need of further research.

Purpose This research paper aims to examine how open innovation (OI) intermediaries facilitate knowledge collaboration between organizations and online user communities. Drawing on a Community of Practice (CoP) perspective on knowledge, the study lays out a framework of the knowledge boundary management mechanisms (and associated practices) that intermediaries deploy in enabling client organizations to engage in online community-based OI. Design/methodology/approach This research is based on an exploratory case study of an OI intermediary and 18 client organizations that engage with online user communities on the intermediary’s platform. Results incorporate both the intermediary and clients’ perspective, based on analysis of intermediary and client interviews, clients’ online community projects and other archival data. Findings Results reveal that OI intermediaries deploy three knowledge boundary management mechanisms – syntactic, semantic and pragmatic – each underpinned by a set of practices. Together, these mechanisms enable knowledge transfer, translation and transformation, respectively, and thus lead to cumulatively richer knowledge collaboration outcomes at the organization–community boundary. The findings show that the pragmatic mechanism reinforces both semantic and syntactic mechanisms, and is hence the most critical to achieving effective knowledge collaboration in community-based OI settings. Practical implications The findings suggest that OI intermediaries have to implement all three boundary management mechanisms to successfully enable knowledge collaboration for community-based OI. More specifically, intermediaries need to expand their focus beyond the development of digital platforms, to include nuanced efforts at building organizational commitment to community engagement. Originality/value Drawing on the CoP view, this study integrates the knowledge management literature into the OI literature to conceptualize the role of OI intermediaries in shaping knowledge collaboration between organizations and communities. In engaging with the interactive nature of knowledge exchange in such multi-actor settings, this research extends the firm-centric theorization of knowledge that currently dominates the existing OI research.

Digital platforms offer a promising contemporary means for encouraging social innovation through cross-sector collaboration. Yet although such "social-mission platforms" are equipped to facilitate a high number of arms-length transactions, they are conversely ill-equipped to provide the necessary consensus which typically characterizes successful examples of cross-sector collaboration. Employing an in-depth archival case study of a civic crowdfunding platform, we surface a process model of social-mission platform creation, which exposes the dilemmas such platforms encounter as they attempt to navigate user growth, and the importance of institutional infrastructure for overcoming these dilemmas. These findings and our emergent model thus contribute new theory regarding the creation of digital platforms for enabling cross-sector collaboration and social innovation, while bridging the emerging body of research on platforms with institutional theory. Managerial Summary: Developing a digital platform for social good requires operators to maintain control over their mission as they grow, while working with actors from across sectors. While the economics of the platform may be clear, the social infrastructure to ensure effective and mission-aligned interaction between different segments of the platform needs to be developed. In our case

As a social theory of organization, it is unsurprising that institutional theory draws upon the profound and ambitious work of the late anthropologist Mary Douglas. One of the foundational concepts of organizational institutionalism, institutional logics, directly draws upon her work. Yet, in recent times, this foundational role has faded from view as institutional theory itself becomes increasingly institutionalized as a vibrant branch of organization studies. This is unfortunate for there is much continuity in current work with that of Douglas, it now being 50 years and 30 years, respectively, since the publication of two of her formative works. The deep analogies that underpin classificatory systems and the processes by which they are sustained remain significant areas under continued investigation by institutional theorists. Thus, in this paper we revisit Douglas' core arguments and their connections to institutional theorizing. We specifically explore her contribution of 'naturalizing analogies' as a way of accounting for the unfolding of change across levels of analysis, extending, modifying and enriching explanations of how institutional change is reified, naturalized and made meaningful. We do this by providing empirical descriptions of meta-organizing analogies and field-level applications. We explain how Douglas' major theoretical works are of considerable relevance for current institutional theorizing. This aids particularly in informing accounts of institutional logics and the movement between individual cognition and collective signification.

Hype is a collective vision and promise of a possible future, around which attention, excitement, and expectations increase over time. Within nascent markets, hype can thus serve as a cultural resource by which entrepreneurs might encourage greater early stakeholder support and resources. And yet as hype-driven support couples with mounting temporal and categorical expectations, this can also limit ventures' flexibility during the entrepreneurial process. Drawing on an inductive, longitudinal, and comparative study of three new ventures within the muchhyped nascent market of impact investing, we develop an emergent theory of hype management, illustrating the field organizing practices that give rise to different forms of social proof, thereby allowing new ventures sufficient flexibility to convert hype into a sustained entrepreneurial opportunity. Our account contributes directly to contemporary public conversations of hype by revealing how entrepreneurs might engage with and indeed live up to the hype surrounding nascent markets without succumbing to the deceit and disappointment typically associated with hype. Beyond this, our findings extend existing scholarship on entrepreneurship within nascent markets, the sociology of expectations, and the realization of distant futures.