On the Spatiality of Institutions and Knowledge

Making Space for Art: A Spatial Perspective of Disruptive and Defensive Institutional Work in Venezuela’s Art World

“…The recognition of space in its geographical nature, and places as key locations, has already informed institutional theory (Jones & Massa, 2013;Siebert et al, 2017). But beyond this work, spatiality in institutions remains latent rather than manifest in much institutional literature both theoretically and empirically (Glückler et al, 2018).…”

“…We combine recent discussions about the relationship between space and organizations (cf. Taylor & Spicer, 2007;Dale & Burell, 2008;Weinfurtner & Seidl, 2018) and space and institutions (Glückler et al, 2018) with the classical work of philosopher and sociologist Henry Lefebvre (1947Lefebvre ( /1991.…”

“…Most research has concentrated on boundary maintenance (Suddaby & Viale, 2011), overlooking those mechanisms through which boundaries are reconstructed or reconstituted after an exogenous shock (Suddaby et al, 2016). Material boundaries (Lawrence et al, 2013;Jones & Massa, 2013), in particular, play a crucial role in understanding how resources are mobilized for institutional work (Glückler et al, 2018). Those material boundaries have however often been conceptualized in locational terms (Lawrence & Dover, 2015;Siebert et al, 2017) rather than in more abstract spatial terms (Weinfurtner & Seidl, 2018).…”

“…The "spatial turn" in organization studies (Dale & Burrell, 2008;Elsbach & Pratt, 2007) is particularly relevant to understanding the dynamics of institutional work (Glückler et al, 2018), that is, how actors purposefully drag institutions in differing directions (Hampel, Lawrence & Tracey, 2015). Institutions are "enduring elements in social life" which "have a profound effect on the thoughts, feelings and behaviour of individual and collective actors" (Lawrence & Suddaby 2006: 216).…”

From Authoritarianism to Democratic Corporatism? The Rise and Decline of Social Dialogue in Korea

“…The other variant emphasized the concept of employer coordination, the capacity of employers to coordinate among themselves. Scholars have paid increasing attention to explaining that the degree of employer coordination and its existence (or absence) is related to variation in social institution, policy, and unemployment [29,30]. Studies showed that employer coordination is at least as important as the centralization of unions in achieving many of the economic outcomes associated with corporatism [31,32].…”