Creating institutional disruption: an alternative method to study institutions

Gidley, Devon

doi:10.1108/jocm-06-2019-0200

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gidley's (2020) paper continues the methodological explorations. He proposes a new approach to organizational studies through intentional breaches of institutional order.…”

Section: Theories As Methods: Interplay and Functionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Consequently, in this special issue, we also find examples of other theories turned method. These examples include Bourdieu's social theory (van Hilten, 2019), “bracketing” as a phenomenological theory (Dörfler and Stierand, 2020), and institutional work theory (Gidley, 2020). Last not least, one article is devoted to the role of abduction in the self-transformation of theories in the eyes of change (Shadnam, 2020).…”

Section: Theories As Methods: Interplay and Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Theory as method: introduction to supertheoretical options for organization and management research

Roth

Mills

Lee

et al. 2021

JOCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis article is devoted to conditions and examples of how theories may be applied as methods in the fields of management research and organization studies.Design/methodology/approachAn introduction to minimum requirements for a successful refunctionalization of theory as method as well as to nine contributions to a special issue of the Journal of Organizational Change Management on “Theory as method” is provided.FindingsThe review of these nine cases suggests that the use of theories as methods is not necessarily harmful for the former, and particularly not for the more robust among them.Originality/valueThis article sheds new light on the value of theoretical monism or loyalty and calls for a reassessment of the relative value of expertise in a specific research field, method and or theory.

show abstract

“…Gidley's (2020) paper continues the methodological explorations. He proposes a new approach to organizational studies through intentional breaches of institutional order.…”

Section: Theories As Methods: Interplay and Functionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Theories As Methods: Interplay and Functionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theory as method: introduction to supertheoretical options for organization and management research

Roth

Mills

Lee

et al. 2021

JOCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…What about cases of no IW (see Nicklich & Fortwengel, 2017)? ( 6) Is researcher intervention in the field needed to probe deeper into institutions and embedded actors (see Dover & Lawrence, 2010;Gidley, 2020)?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional Work: A Review and Framework based on Semantic and Thematic Analysis

Gidley

Palmer

2021

mgmt

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Institutional work as a concept has evolved and diffused beyond roots in management and organizational studies since it was first defined by Lawrence and Suddaby (2006). A diverse literature and recent criticism call for an extensive review of the field. We conducted a systematic review of 452 peer-reviewed articles in 185 different journals published from March 2006 to December 2019. Semantic analysis revealed changes in topics over time, the rise of institutional maintenance, and a focus on individuals and agency. Using thematic analysis, we inductively categorized the claimed contributions to institutional work as theory combining, actors, contexts, institutional work types, representations, and methodology. The findings led us to develop an integrative conceptual framework for future institutional work study built around setting, motivations, types, and outcomes. We visualized the discourse around institutional work, growth of key themes from early theorizing, and an original process model.

show abstract

“…Decoupling diffusion and institutionalized taken-forgrantedness allows further explaining why popular practices decline and disappear and why truly institutionalized practices are immune to deinstitutionalization and persist. Diffusion, adoption, maintenance and abandonment of organizational practices belong to key topics in organizational and management literature (Abrahamson, 1991;1996;Kostova, 1999;Mazza and Alvarez, 2000;Sturdy, 2004;Kennedy and Fiss, 2009;Ansari et al, 2010;Dacin et al, 2010;Colyvas and Jonsson, 2011;Rovik, 2011;Siebert et al, 2017;Gidley, 2020). As researchers acknowledge, among hundreds of management ideas, concepts and techniques, few diffuse broadly and become organizational standards (Staw and Epstein, 2000;Green, 2004).…”

Section: Defining the Nature Scope And Dimensions Of Deinstitutionali...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deinstitutionalization revisited

Aksom

2021

IJOA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to offer a new analysis and understanding of the notion of deinstitutionalization. Deinstitutionalization of taken-for-granted practices as a natural consequence of ever-increasing entropy seems to directly contradict the major institutional thesis, namely, that over time isomorphic forces increase and, as a result, possibilities for deinstitutionalization decrease culminating in the impossibility of abandoning in highly institutionalized fields. Design/methodology/approach This paper is conceptual in nature. Oliver’s 1992 paper on deinstitutionalization is taken as a key text on the subject and as a starting point for building an alternative theory of deinstitutionalization. More broadly, institutional theory and organizational literature on diffusion/adoption are reviewed and synthesized. Findings The authors argue that possibilities for deinstitutionalization have been overestimated in institutional literature and offer a revisited account of deinstitutionalization vs institutional isomorphism and institutionalized vs highly diffusing-but-not-institutionalized practices. A freedom for choice between alternative practices exists during the pre-institutional stage but not when the field is already institutionalized. In contrast, institutionalized, taken-for-granted practices are immutable to any sort of functional and political pressures and they use to persist even when no technical value remains, thus deinstitutionalization on the basis of a functional dissatisfaction seems to be a paradox. Research limitations/implications By revisiting the nature and patterns of deinstitutionalization, the paper offers a better conceptual classification and understanding of how organizations adopt, maintain and abandon organizational ideas and practices. An important task of this paper is to reduce the scope of application of deinstitutionalization theory to make it more focused and self-consistent. There is, however, still not enough volume of studies on institutional factors of practices’ abandonment in institutional literature. The authors, therefore, acknowledge that more studies are needed to further improve both the former deinstitutionalization theory and the framework. Originality/value The authors offer a solution to this theoretical inconsistency by distinguishing between truly institutionalized practices and currently popular practices (highly diffused but non-institutionalized). It is only the latter that are subject to the norms of progress that allow abandoning and replacing existing organizational activities. Deinstitutionalization theory is, thus can be applied to popular practices that are subject to reevaluation, abandonment and replacement with new optimal practices while institutions are immutable to these norms of progress. Institutions are immutable to deinstitutionalization and the deinstitutionalization of optimal practices is subject to the logic of isomorphic convergence in organizational fields. Finally, the authors revisit a traditional two-stage institutional diffusion model to explain the possibility and likelihood of abandonment during different stages of institutionalization.

show abstract

Creating institutional disruption: an alternative method to study institutions

Cited by 9 publications

References 44 publications

Theory as method: introduction to supertheoretical options for organization and management research

Theory as method: introduction to supertheoretical options for organization and management research

Institutional Work: A Review and Framework based on Semantic and Thematic Analysis

Deinstitutionalization revisited

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About