Varieties of Field Theory and the Sociology of the Non‐profit Sector

Abstract

This paper reviews the use of field theory in the sociological study of the non-profit sector. The review first shows how field theory, as a conceptual framework to explain social action, provides a valuable sociological counterweight to prevailing economic and psychological orientations in the interdisciplinary scholarship on the non-profit sector. However, despite its certain shared assumptions, field theory in sociology encompasses three distinct, albeit interrelated, approaches: the Bourdieusian, New Institutionalist, and Strategic Action Fields perspectives. I comparatively outline the key analytical assumptions and causal claims of each version of field theory, whether and how it recognizes the specificity of the non-profit sector and then delineate its application by sociologists to the non-profit sector. I show how scholars' employment of each articulation of field theory to study non-profit activity has been inf luenced by pre-existing scholarly assumptions and normative claims about this third space. The article concludes by summarizing the use of these varieties of field theory in the sociology of the non-profit sector and by identifying future directions in this line of research.Field Theory and Non-profits 443 446 Field Theory and Non-profits

Field Emergence in Civil Society: A Theoretical Framework and Its Application to Community-Led Housing Organisations in England

“…Further insights are generated by work on the institutionalisation of civil society fields (Nicholls 2010a, b;Nicholls and Teasdale 2017). In line with Barman (2016) and Krause (2018), we believe that different field traditions (Bourdieusian, New Institutionalist and Strategic Action Fields) can complement each other in the analysis of particular fields.…”

“…In terms of field autonomy, Fligstein and McAdam's (2011, p. 3) notion of ''Russian dolls'' helps to conceptualise CLH as a particular meso-level social order overlapping with larger and smaller fields at the same time (Barman 2016). Thus, co-operative housing, for instance, is embedded in the larger field of CLH and social housing, and these fields are in turn affected by the market field.…”

“…(1) Opportunities in the Broader Field Environment: In line with New Institutionalism, the SAF approach highlights that events in the field environment deserve attention as they provide the initial opportunity for contestation (Barman 2016). Nicholls and Teasdale (2017) concur with SAF writers that institutional change or paradigm shift within a field requires an external shock.…”

“…Field theory has become a common analytical approach for sociological inquiry into the civil society and non-profit sector (Barman 2016). What all three major field approaches (the Bourdieusian, New Institutionalist and Strategic Action Fields perspectives) have in common is the relational understanding of a field, i.e.…”

“…Thus, analysis of field autonomy concerns the position of a specific field within ''the overall architecture of fields that it is embedded in'' (Krause 2018, p. 10). In this respect, Fligstein and McAdam's (2011, p. 3) notion of ''Russian dolls'' is a fruitful metaphor and helps to conceptualise CLH as a housing field where actors are embedded in larger and smaller SAFs at the same time (Barman 2016). Similarly, Nicholls and Teasdale (2017) reinforce the need to focus on multiple levels that affect micro-level field actors and on the boundaries between emerging fields and more institutionalised and powerful neighbouring fields.…”