Pierre Bourdieu in Studies of Organization and Management

Abstract

This chapter draws upon Bourdieu's concept of capital to examine the importation of organizational models and the adaptive processes that we observed in respective institutional contexts. Through the lens of a longitudinal case study, we demonstrate how a coalition of elite actors mobilized capital to successfully import the US community foundation model into the North East of England. By converting different forms of capital within the philanthropic field, local power brokers enabled the local adaptation of models and associated practices aligned with particular community needs and circumstances. Our main contribution to this book is to demonstrate the need for elite actors to convert capital, which can facilitate the importation of organizational models. We show how local elite actors drawn from different professional and business fields build coalitions during the process of importation to engage in the conversion of different types of capitals.

Borders of immersive fieldwork - a methodological critique of entrepreneurship

“…Indeed, many sociological theories tend to be vernacularly used in entrepreneurship, cherry-picking concepts as buzz words is a common phenomenon, if not symptomatic of social theories in entrepreneurship. Examples of such superficial engagement with social theories in entrepreneurship are reflected: in the singular usage of social capital and claiming it to be Bourdieusian (whereas Bourdieu's theory is unique and pivotal as it embeds different types of capital into their specific field, see Yamamura and Lassalle (2022); Bourdieu 1976, 1979; Robinson et al, 2021), the mere counting of ethnicities of entrepreneurs and claiming it to be superdiversity (whereas Vertovec's concept precisely criticises this groupist view and extends the diversity dimensions beyond ethnicity, see Yamamura and Lassalle (2020a); Vertovec, 2007) and in the limited adaptation of Crenshaw’s (1991) intersectionality theory into entrepreneurship (often ignoring the important discourses on power issues and simultaneous multiple discrimination in social sciences) when a real engagement with intersectionality theory is needed (Essers et al, 2020; Lassalle and Shaw, 2021b; Yamamura and Lassalle, 2021).…”

The Social and Political Significance of Technology-Driven Organisational Change: Discursive Battles to Frame, Define and Decide in ‘a Space of Points of View’

“…Discursive production is part of positioning struggles as ways of protecting interests, where agents create classifications and representations of what occupies them to advance their interests and improve their position in the field (Blommaert, 2018;Bourdieu, 1991;Hanks, 2005;Robinson et al, 2022). Classifications are sparsely explained by Bourdieu as 'delimitations', and representations as 'performative statements which seek to bring about what they state' (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 225); thus, they aim to produce 'social effects' with real and symbolic consequences (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 220).…”

“…He uses ‘field’ to conceptualise the context of discursive practice and ‘interest’ and ‘position’ to explain social and political action. A field is a social space of differentiation, play and competition, where interest refers to having stakes in what Bourdieu (1998, p. 25) often terms ‘the game’, which concerns the relational, antagonistic, political and symbolic dimensions of fields (Robinson et al, 2022).…”

“…In the case studied, the geographical boundaries of the field are identical with the area of the two Danish regions that have invested in and implemented the HP, yet the political boundaries are national because the HP concerns the National Healthcare Digitalisation Strategy as well as national strategies concerning quality improvements to hospital care. The hospital field thus depends on what Bourdieu (1998, p. 42) terms 'the field of power', mainly understood as the state as a meta field which has the power to impose its decisions and definitions on all other fields while also being influenced by these (Robinson et al, 2022). As elaborated below, the medical professions have managed to secure the hospital field great autonomy through history (Jespersen, 2013;Timmermans & Oh, 2010).…”