Accounting for organizational innovations: Mobilizing institutional logics in translation

Translation Theory ‘Translated’: Three Perspectives on Translation in Organizational Research

“…The dividing lines between the perspectives are further reduced by the fact that some authors move across the perspectives, relying on one of the approaches in one publication and another approach in others (e.g. Bergström ; Bergström and Diedrich ; Waldorff ,b), or using several perspectives in the same publication (e.g. Frenkel ; Gherardi and Nicolini ).…”

“…By subsuming the perspectives under these premises, we recognize that they are sufficiently compatible and, if not ‘non‐identical twins’ (Mica , p. 6, quoting Czarniawska 2006) (or ‘triplets’), then at least part of the same family of approaches seeking to understand aspects of the same phenomenon. Of course, some ontological challenges could arise when combining and merging the perspectives because core assumptions differ (Waldorff , p. 220). While the ANT and Scandinavian institutionalist perspectives on translation, as noted, build on (social) constructivist approaches, most of the knowledge‐based works reviewed here embrace a positivist approach.…”

“…Kelemen (, p. 495) notes that translation is about what top management does to seduce, force or rationally convince employees through the use of language that a specific practice is ‘a viable and profitable option for everyone’. More recently, Waldorff (, p. 221) notes that translation ‘is about enrolling more and more micro‐actors into a powerful network to build support for a specific claim and possibly make this claim into a taken‐for‐granted fact’. Thus, translation is highly political and involves the mobilization of a network of actors supporting a particular claim or object, making it as permanent as possible.…”

“…In this process, more than perceptions of a particular object or the interests of particular actors are at stake: Translation concerns the fate of management ideas, particularly with respect to intentional or unintentional modifications. For example, within the framework of the ANT perspective, Waldorff () understands translation as a process whereby actors mobilize meaning to turn an organizational innovation into local versions. Sahay et al .…”

“…On the basis of this understanding of translation, researchers have investigated a range of objects that travel into new contexts and acquire new meanings including corporate codes of ethics (Jensen et al . ), health care center concepts (Waldorff ), and international accounting standards (Mennicken ), among others.…”