11

Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations

Marc Schneiberg and Michael Lounsbury

Calls for reintroducing agency, politics and 2000; Seo and Creed 2002; Lounsbury 2007; contestation into institutional analysis are Schneiberg 2007; Fligstein and McAdam now legion, spanning more than two decades 2012; Padgett and Powell 2012; Thornton since DiMaggio’s (1988) classic piece, and et al. 2012; Ocasio, Thornton and Lounsbury, gaining new urgency as scholars struggle to Chapter 19 this volume;). Focusing more on explain institutional emergence and change. interests, other scholars have brought new Institutionalists face persistent difficulties in attention to actors and what they do, produc­ these tasks. Working from arguments about ing studies of ‘institutional entrepreneurs’ isomorphism, diffusion, or path dependence, (Beckert 1999; Hwang and Powell 2005; they often invoke ad hoc explanations like Hardy and McGuire 2008) and institutional exogenous shocks in order to reconcile work (Lawrence et al. 2013). Within this change and path creation with theories that milieu, scholars have also sought to overcome stress the contextual sources of stability, con­ ‘excessive institutional determinism’ by turn­ tinuity and conformity (Greenwood and ing to social movement theory and the study Hinings 1996; Clemens and Cook 1999; of collective mobilization. Campbell 2004; Schneiberg 2005; Streeck Spanning sociology and political science, and Thelen 2005). To address these difficul­ social movement theory has produced a ties, institutionalists have begun to revise both wealth of concepts and research on change, their conceptions of fields and their views of including studies of students organizing to action. From a more structural approach to register black voters in the 1960s (McAdam agency, some scholars increasingly view 1988), the mobilization of farmers, ­workers fields as comprised of multiple logics, or by and women to make claims on the state indeterminacy, ambiguities or contradictions, (Clemens 1997), shareholder activism to opening theoretical spaces for action (Stryker contest managerial control over corporations

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 281 15/04/17 2:25 PM 282 The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism

(Davis and Thompson 1994), the growth of Both emphasize agency, deliberate or strate­ identity movements pursuing peace, gay/ gic action, and self-conscious mobilization lesbian rights and environmentalism (e.g., around alternatives. Both wrestle with prob­ Laraña et al. 1994), and the rise of trans­ lems or paradoxes of how actors embedded national pressure groups (Keck and Sikkink within institutions can change those systems, 1998). What these studies share is an interest how institutions limit or support change, and in contestation and collective mobilization how actors draw on the elements or con­ processes – how groups coalesce to make tradictions of existing institutions to forge claims for or against certain practices or new ones. Both identify some of the same actors in order to create or resist new insti­ processes as critical for change, including tutional arrangements or transform existing framing, theorization, transposition and the ones. They also share an interest in trac­ recombination of logics. Yet where institu­ ing how contestation and collective action tional entrepreneurship research often attrib­ rest on the capacity of groups to mobilize utes substantial casual efficacy to individuals, resources and recruit members, their abil­ studies linking movements and institutional­ ity to engage in cultural entrepreneurship or ism are more deeply rooted in contextually frame issues to increase acceptance of their situated approaches to agency. They thus claims (Lounsbury and Glynn 2001; Werner place greater emphasis on politics and and Conelissen 2014), and the political ­collective mobilization as motors of change, opportunity structures that constrain or ena­ and more systematically address the relations ble mobilization (McAdam et al. 1996). This between activity, collective organization and chapter focuses on how engaging collective existing institutional contexts. mobilization and social movement theory has Our central claim is that analyzing inspired new work in institutional analysis. ­movements within neo-institutional theory The integration of movements into institu­ is essential for understanding when and how: tional analysis revised imageries of institu­ (1) paths or fields become constituted around tional processes, actors and the structure of multiple, competing logics; and (2) multiple fields, generating new leverage for explain­ logics, contradictions and ambiguities fuel ing change and path creation. Regarding field-level change and new path creation. In processes, it has added contestation, collec­ making this claim, we accept, rather than dis­ tive action, framing and deliberate mobiliza­ miss, contextual arguments about durability, tion for alternatives to conceptual repertoires path dependence and stability that give insti­ of legitimation, diffusion, isomorphism and tutionalism its analytical edge in explain­ self-reproducing taken-for-granted practices ing continuity, differences or ‘higher order’ (Jepperson 1991; Colyvas and Powell 2006). effects on organizations (Schneiberg and Regarding actors, it counterposes challengers Clemens 2006). Institutions exhibit increas­ and champions of alternatives to accounts of ing returns and positive feedbacks (Pierson states, professions and other incumbents as 2000). Actors empowered by existing insti­ key players. Regarding structure, it moves tutions use their advantages to elaborate from images of isomorphic worlds of diffu­ institutions to preserve their power and pre­ sion, path dependence and conformity toward clude alternatives. Diffusion, adoption and conceptions of fields as sites of contestation, the resulting communities of practice create organized around multiple and competing isomorphic pressures that make conformity logics and forms. a condition for legitimacy, fueling further As will be clear, work that integrates diffusion. Institutionalized theories of order movements into neo-institutionalism paral­ render alternatives unthinkable or inappropri­ lels work on institutional entrepreneurship ate, ensuring that even opposition occurs in in key respects (Hardy and McGuire 2008). those terms, deepening the paths it contests.

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 282 15/04/17 2:25 PM Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations 283

In short, rather than simply assert an actor- from insider movements, we note that these centered institutionalism, we begin with the distinctions are often blurred in reality. In structural insight that limits on alternatives fact, some of the most exciting recent work and pressures for continuity or convergence emphasizes the processes by which outsider often exercise considerable force. Reflexive movements catalyze movements and changes action, the capacity to articulate alternatives, inside fields and organizations, how move­ the salience of multiple logics, or their trans­ ments can combine outsider and insider lation into change, cannot be assumed. To the efforts, and how challengers and incum­ contrary, these are often fragile achievements bents inside and outside of fields interact and that ultimately rest on the emergence and influence each other, collectively producing efficacy of social movements. change. Using existing and ongoing research, In section 3 we turn from movements as this chapter outlines analytical strategies agents of change to analyses of how institu­ for addressing the rise and effects of move­ tions serve as contexts that shape contesta­ ments on institutional fields and organiza­ tion and collective action. Institutionalists tions. We pay particular attention to how have recognized that institutions constrain those strategies revise existing institutional and enable mobilization, create openings accounts of change and path creation. In for challengers, and shape their capacities sections 1 and 2 we consider movements as to produce change. This has led them to the agents and infrastructures of change, out­ movements literature on political opportunity lining two approaches to what movements structure and institutional mediation (e.g., do and how they affect fields. One treats Amenta et al. 1992; Davis and Thompson movements as forces against institutions, 1994; McAdam 1999), prompting new as forces operating outside established insights about opportunity structures, a rein­ channels to assert new visions and disrupt vigoration of multilevel approaches, and new or directly contest existing arrangements, strategies for analyzing movements, existing evoking legitimacy crises, sense-making institutions and change. Taking a decidedly and other institutional processes within cultural cast, these strategies reformulate fields. This approach revises two ­canons arguments about political opportunity struc­ in institutional theory – the two-stage tures as institutional opportunity structures, model of institutionalization and histories highlighting how movements and change are of change as punctuated equilibrium. It also endogenously shaped by institutions. provides insights into how fields become Based on these discussions, we turn in constituted around multiple logics. section 4 to suggest new directions for A second approach considers the rise and research on how movements and institutional impact of movements within fields, exam­ dynamics combine to produce change. One ining movements as institutional forces or key direction is methodological: to develop infrastructures for institutional processes clearer, more direct measures of movements including theorization, recombination and and to exploit the analytical leverage of mul­ diffusion. This approach reveals how diffu­ tivariate approaches. This will help assess sion, translation and adoption are political and systematize claims from qualitative and processes that often depend on collective historical work about movement effects and action. It also begins to shed light on how the relations between movements, institu­ movements emerge from and exploit con­ tional contexts and outcomes. Three other tradictions or multiple logics within fields to directions involve substantively rethinking mobilize support, forge new paths or produce the relationships between movements, insti­ change. While our discussion analytically tutional dynamics and context in fueling path segregates outside, challenger movements creation and change. One direction for future

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 283 15/04/17 2:25 PM 284 The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism

research flips the imagery in opportunity process in which combinations or sequences structure arguments of institutions as contexts of movements cumulatively produce change. for movements, and analyzes movements as Movements might figure in the production contexts and political conditions for diffusion of unintended and incremental trajecto- and other institutional processes. Insofar as ries of change. That is, even when they are alternatives are contested or suppressed by defeated or their time has passed, movements vested interests, their diffusion will depend may leave legacies, elements of institutional on collective action and the mobilization of orders, and bits and pieces of paths not taken, power by champions of new practices and producing diffuse but important effects, and forms. In cases like these, movements can creating possibilities for subsequent move­ moderate institutional processes, supporting ments, institution-building and transforma­ diffusion or translation in three ways: by serv­ tion (Schneiberg 2007). Focusing on these ing as field-wide mechanisms for mobilizing possibilities sheds further light on how move­ power, by working as political forces within ments and their effects are endogenously pro­ organizations to increase their receptivity to duced, helping researchers avoid the trap of alternatives, or by working between organi­ invoking movements, like exogenous shocks, zations to increase innovators’ influence as a deus ex machina. as exemplars. Taking this approach to how movements operate in fields can help explain the diffusion of alternatives and more diverse outcomes related to practice variation. MOVEMENTS FROM OUTSIDE A second direction for future work retains INSTITUTIONS: CHALLENGER/ the imagery of institutions as contexts or con­ DOMINANCE APPROACHES ditions for mobilization, but analyzes those contexts as opportunity structures charac- One way to integrate movements into institu­ terized by institutional heterogeneity, multi- tional research preserves the analytical dis­ ple institutions, or architectures of multiple, tinction between movements, contestation adjacent or overlapping fields (Evans and and deliberate mobilization, on the one hand, Kay 2008; Greenwood et al. 2011; Mora and institutional processes like the reproduc­ 2014). Such contexts contain substantial tion of taken-for-granted practices, on the potentials for transposing forms and frames other, taking movements as an ‘extra-institu­ within or across settings, using changes, tional’ force that impacts change or new path processes or disruptions in nearby fields to creation. This approach hardly exhausts pos­ alter dynamics within a field, or leveraging sible relations between movements and insti­ and repurposing institutions in one domain tutions. But it captures the wide class of for path creation and change in another. cases where movements arise outside of or Pursuing this approach broadens our concep­ on the peripheries of established fields, tion of opportunity structures, highlighting acting as outsiders/challengers to assert new how institutional contexts can provide activ­ visions of order, disrupt existing systems, or ists with opportunities for using dissonance, secure representation or policies from estab­ cross-field pressures, or inter-institutional lished authorities (Fligstein and McAdam effects to more effectively translate numbers, 2012). Thinking in these terms also extends organization and action into change. the institutional framework to highlight pro­ In a third direction for future research, cesses left exogenous by existing accounts of we consider the origins of movements and emergence and change, opening up a black- institutions, taking an historical approach box of ‘pre-institutional’ dynamics, and and considering the relationship between adding new imageries and mechanisms to institutions and movements as an ongoing our conceptual repertoire.

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 284 15/04/17 2:25 PM Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations 285

Consider two canonical formulations in activists demanding state intervention to end neo-institutional analysis. In the two-stage discrimination and agrarian populists con­ model of institutionalization, the emergence testing corporate consolidation. of fields is a ‘bottom-up’ phenomenon: Schneiberg and Soule’s (2005) study of rate (1) organizations or states adopt structures regulation in insurance develops one model or policies in response to local problems, of the role of movements in the institutionali­ politics or characteristics, which then spark zation process, revising canonical accounts. (2) processes of mimesis, theorization and It conceptualizes institutions as political set­ diffusion, eventually crystallizing a broader tlements. Moreover, it analyzes path creation community of practice around a core set of as a contested process grounded in sequences principles or models (Tolbert and Zucker of mobilization, disruption and conventional 1983; Baron et al. 1986; Galaskiewicz and institutional dynamics, tracing how mobili­ Wasserman 1989; Strang and Chang 1993; zation outside established channels catalyzes Schofer and Meyer 2005). As solutions dif­ path creation and change. Specifically, their fuse, they become taken-for-granted as an study shows how rate regulation by American accepted norm, serving as baselines to which states in the early twentieth century was organizations must subsequently conform sparked neither by exogenous shocks, nor as a condition for legitimacy. In punctu­ by scattered and unconnected politics or ated equilibrium models, change occurs as a problem-solving behavior, but rather by anti- sequence of shock, disruption, deinstitution­ corporate movements who worked to contest alization and reinstitutionalization (Edelman corporate consolidation and assert alterna­ 1990, 2006; Fligstein 1990, 2001; Sutton tive forms of economic order. Mobilizing et al. 1994; Sutton and Dobbin 1996). Shocks in response to ‘trusts’ and ‘combines’, the like new laws or court rulings subvert exist­ Grange, Farmers Alliance and other groups ing routines, vested interests and established directly opposed ‘corporate liberal’ models understandings, evoking uncertainty, sense- of order based on for-profit corporations, making and a succession of players and national markets and unregulated industry. models as new groups emerge to define the Instead, they pursued ‘producer republican’ situation and establish their solutions as new logics that envisioned American capital­ bases of order. ism as a regionally decentralized and coop­ Both models shed light on key institutional eratively organized economy of independent processes: (1) mutual monitoring, mimesis producers, farmers and self-governing towns. and the diffusion or transposition of practices And in targeting insurance, Grangers and across organizations; (2) theorization, codifi­ other groups secured anti-trust laws to break cation or the endorsement of best practices­ up the ‘insurance trust’, organized consumer- by professional associations; and (3) inter­ owned mutual firms, and otherwise disrupted ventions by states to ratify, redraw or reject insurance markets, fueling legitimacy crises, field boundaries and emerging solutions (e.g., public hearings and new interventions within Strang and Meyer 1993). Yet both tend to key states. neglect the origins of new ideas and practices These disruptions and interventions, in as well as the sources of disruption, leav­ turn, sparked politics and conventional insti­ ing key players and processes unanalyzed. tutional processes within the insurance field. However, in many canonical cases featuring­ They evoked inter-state diffusion in which isomorphism, the instigating shocks or moti­ key players monitored other states, theorized vations for adoption were the direct and rate regulation as a solution to the ‘insur­ deliberate results of social movements – ance problem’, recombined elements to forge municipal reformers and progressives fight­ those solutions and adopted laws passed by ing corruption in city government, civil rights other states. They also evoked supra-state

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 285 15/04/17 2:25 PM 286 The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism

or field-wide process in which courts and and other kinds of apolitical associations the professions endorsed regulation, prom­ into mainstream politics. These sequences ulgated model laws, and built field-wide of actions fundamentally altered the terms administrative organs. Taken together, these of political representation and influence, institutional processes shifted the balance creating access and clout for previously dis­ of power within states, crystallizing insur­ enfranchised groups and institutionalizing ance around economic models and regulatory lobbying, legislative monitoring, and other solutions that settled political struggles over now taken-for-granted modes of American industry governance (see also Schneiberg politics. For Hoffman (1999), movements 1999, 2002; Schneiberg and Bartley 2001). and institutional dynamics play pivotal roles Rao, Clemens, Hoffman and recent work in field creation and change in contemporary on contemporary anti-corporate mobiliza­ environmentalism. Conflicts over competing tion also go beyond canonical accounts by institutions and successive rounds of environ­ foregrounding movements, understanding mental mobilization, scandal and legislative paths as political settlements, or analyzing activity provoked new forms of discourse, path creation as sequences of movements, theorization and new patterns of interactions mobilization and institutional processes. Rao among firms, non-profits and governments. (1998) shows how the consumer watchdog These dynamics, in turn, helped produce an agencies and product rating schemes that are increasingly structured environmental field. now taken-for-granted were the product of Work on contemporary anti-corporate consumer mobilization and contestation over politics has likewise located change in whether scientific testing and the power of sequences or combination of mobilization informed consumers should be blended with and institutional processes, paying growing the role of labor, unionization and concerns attention to movement disruption of firms about production. At first, consumer groups and how corporations engage in non-market fought for two different logics of reform, one strategies to appease activists, fueling diffu­ that blended consumer advocacy with union­ sion of reforms and new practices (Bartley ism and one that focused more narrowly on 2007; Briscoe and Safford 2008; Soule 2009; the consumer. But broader political dynam­ King and Pearce 2011; Vasi and King 2012; ics eliminated the more comprehensive radi­ De Bakker et al. 2013; McDonnell and King cal change frame from the path, segregating 2013; McDonnell et al. 2015; Vasi et al. 2015; ‘consumer’ and ‘worker’, and ensuring the Hiatt et al. 2015). King and Soule (2007) dominance of a consumer-only impartial test­ importantly show how protestors are effec­ ing logic (see Carruthers and Babb 1996 for a tive in driving down a firm’s stock price when similar analysis of monetary systems). they target issues dealing with critical stake­ Clemens and Hoffman more directly holder groups such as workers and consum­ address how change flows from combina­ ers. In response to these and other threats to tions of movements and institutional pro­ their reputations and bottom lines, firms have cesses. For Clemens (1993, 1997), interest borrowed, transposed and embraced corpo­ group politics became a core feature of the rate social responsibility practices, domes­ American polity through successive waves tic partner benefits and the like (Briscoe of mobilization and transposition by three and Safford 2008; Soule 2009). They have outsider/challenger groups. Acting collectively also collaborated with non-profit groups in to contest parties and patronage, first unions, organizing and diffusing private governance then farmers and then women’s groups systems and now ubiquitous rating and rank­ built on previous efforts to disrupt existing ing schemes (Bartley 2007), while becoming arrangements (strikes, boycotts, protests) by more sophisticated in counter-mobilization transposing fraternals, cooperatives, clubs efforts including astroturfing strategies by

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 286 15/04/17 2:25 PM Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations 287

corporations to create impressions of grass­ turn, by theorizing, endorsing and diffusing roots support for a policy or product (Walker regulatory policies that recombined multiple 2014; Walker and Rea 2014). This has stimu­ forms into new packages. Similarly, farmers, lated important research on elite mobilization unions and women’s groups reconstructed (Soule 2009; Ingram et al. 2010; Zald and the American state via successive waves Lounsbury 2010; Rao et al. 2011; Yue 2015). of mobilization, contestation and transla­ As a group, these studies substantially tion, much like contemporary anti-corporate revise canonical accounts of path creation activists did for neoliberal governance, with and change. First, they support a view of successive mobilizations sparking the theo­ institutions as settlements of political strug­ rization and diffusion of corporate social gles over the character of fields fueled by the responsibility and private governance. mobilization of challengers around compet­ Third, these studies provide a more varied ing projects and logics (Davis and Thompson understanding of how movements fuel path 1994; Fligstein 1996; Armstrong 2005; creation and change by mobilizing outside McAdam and Scott 2005). Emphasizing established channels to contest extant sys­ contestation and collective action, this view tems. At a minimum, by introducing multiple departs from ‘cooler’ imageries of paths as logics and promoting awareness of problems, based in diffusion, taken-for-granted prac­ challenger movements subvert the taken-for- tice, theorization and normative endorsement grantedness of existing arrangements, fueling by professions or states. Thus, insurance rate legitimacy crises and institutional politics regulation represented a political solution (Stryker 2000), and providing insiders with of struggles between insurers, who pursued cultural resources for criticism, reflexive economic logics of corporations, markets and action or ‘mindful deviation’ (Garud and unregulated industry associations, and chal­ Karnoe 2001). Thus, as anti-corporate forces, lenger groups, who sought anti-trust laws, consumers and women’s groups took action regulation and mutual alternatives to promote and asserted new logics, they not only evoked more decentralized and cooperatively organ­ media attention and public debate, creat­ ized economies. Conflicts over these visions ing openings for challengers and reformers yielded structural innovations, but were not to delegitimate dominant institutional sys­ resolved until field members crafted pack­ tems. They also supplied experts, reformers ages that combined regulation with private and other groups with models and cultural association, and mutuals with for-profit cor­ resources for criticizing and revising extant porations. The consumer advocacy field like­ paths such as by combining or layering them wise reflected a settlement of struggles and with new forms and elements. mobilization around competing logics, albeit Challenger movements can likewise intro­ one that involved a clear-cut victory of one duce new organizational forms into fields, logic of consumerism over another. working outside established channels to Second, these studies suggest an image build parallel, alternative systems of organi­ of the process of institutionalization as a zation, including craft breweries (Carroll sequence or combination between contes­ and Swaminathan 2000), nouvelle cuisine tation and mobilization around alternative (Rao et al. 2003), mutual and cooperative visions of order, on the one hand, and more enterprises (Schneiberg 2002) and com­ conventional institutional dynamics, on the munity-based, non-profit recycling centers other. In insurance, challengers mobilized (Lounsbury et al. 2003; see also Clemens outside the system to contest the ‘insurance 1997; Rao et al. 2000). These efforts may combine’ and impose alternative forms and not be disruptive in intent. Yet promoting anti-trust policies on the industry. Regulators alternative forms can foster new competitive and reformers within the field responded, in dynamics and populate fields with instances

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 287 15/04/17 2:25 PM 288 The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism

of new logics, with quite disruptive effects. and change as political-cultural forces for By translating apolitical forms of association contestation, confrontation and disruption. into state, agrarians, unions and women’s Instantiating new logics, they can evoke con­ groups altered both the terms of competi­ troversy and debate within fields, conflicts tion in American politics and prevailing con­ and policy responses within organizations, ceptions of appropriate political action. By inter-organizational diffusion and field-wide promulgating mutual insurance, Grangers association, while supplying insiders and and other groups instantiated cooperativism reformers with templates, political support and transformed the terms of competition in a and cultural resources for theorization, trans­ key sector, forcing insurance corporations to position, recombination and the assembly of engage in new forms of rivalry based on pre­ new institutions. vention, re-reengineering and loss reduction. Simple in its essentials, a conception By introducing the science based, not-for- that emphasizes sequences of outsider profit product testing agency, the consumer movements, mobilization and institutional movement transformed the terms of trade processes has supported increasingly sophis­ throughout the economy, as in an odd twist ticated analyses of path creation and change. did contemporary anti-corporate activists, As we show in section 3, a ‘movements from whose efforts helped fuel the spread of rating outside institutions’ conception lends itself and ranking, corporate self-regulation, and readily to multilevel analyses of fields, and other forms of private governance, laying key to consideration of how existing institutions foundations for a neoliberal order. or political opportunity structures shape Finally, challenger movements can spark challengers’ capacities to mobilize and effect path creation and change by quite directly change. Yet this conception does not exhaust and deliberately disrupting existing arrange­ the ways that movements figure as agents of ments (e.g., den Hond and de Bakker 2007; path creation and change. van Wijk et al. 2013; Bertels et al. 2014). They can mobilize masses, networks and political support to pressure states and other power centers for new agencies, laws and MOVEMENTS WITHIN INSTITUTIONS: policies that ban or mandate practices, pro­ COLLECTIVE MOBILIZATION AS ducing uncertainties or prohibitions associ­ INSTITUTIONAL PROCESS ated with new laws, agencies and mandates that profoundly destabilize existing systems, Groups seeking change often mobilize col­ fueling sustained institutional dynamics lectively outside established institutions to (Fligstein 1990; Edelman 1992; Dobbin and assert new logics and disrupt taken-for- Dowd 1997; Hoffman 1999). And like ACT granted arrangements. Yet institutionalists UP and Earth First!, challenges from without have recognized movements also arise within can and do use protests, boycotts and direct institutions or fields, mobilizing insiders and actions to dramatize problems and directly well as outsiders, using established networks disrupt daily operations and routines (Elsbach and resources to diffuse alternative practices, and Sutton 1992; Hoffman 1999; King and and drawing effectively on existing institu­ Soule 2007; King 2008). Challenger move­ tional elements and models to craft new sys­ ments can scale up their efforts and impact tems (see Fligstein 1996, 2001). Indeed, by constructing and participating in field- while movements can drive change by configuring events (Maguire et al. 2004; directly opposing existing schemes, generat­ Hardy and Maguire 2008; Lampel and Meyer ing legitimacy crises or otherwise disrupting 2008). In all of these ways, movements and institutions, they sometimes promote path counter-movements can fuel path creation creation and change incrementally by

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 288 15/04/17 2:25 PM Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations 289

engaging in institutional processes (or fashion, producing trajectories of path crea­ becoming institutional forces). That is, move­ tion or change as reconfiguration, recombi­ ments can emerge and operate within nation or layering (Clemens and Cook 1999; ­established channels and power structures, Streeck and Thelen 2005; Schneiberg 2007). drawing on existing institutions and taken- It also opens up possibilities for under­ for-granted understandings to theorize, artic­ standing trajectories of outsider challengers­ ulate and combine new projects or practices ­moving inside fields and organizations, with prevailing models and arrangements. and the emergence of tempered radicals In so doing, movements may themselves working from within to refashion organiza­ become vehicles or established channels for tional ­policies via more conventional means diffusion, theorization, recombination and (Meyerson and Scully 1995). other institutional processes within fields. Lounsbury and colleagues’ studies of recy­ This broader conception of movements cling address how movements can enter into risks a loss of analytical specificity and a and operate within fields and organizations diminished focus on contesting power struc­ as institutional forces, emphasizing their role tures, especially where movements become as agents of theorization, classification, and synonymous with collective or quasi- the diffusion of codified arguments, frames or collective action geared toward any type of theoretical resources (Lounsbury 2001, 2005: change (Scully and Segal 2002; Scully and Lounsbury et al. 2003). Initially, eco-­activists Creed 2005). Yet as suggested above, analyz­ pursued recycling outside established ing movements as intra-institutional forces ­channels, working independently against productively blurs distinctions between the waste industry to organize thousands of ‘extra-institutional’ and ‘institutional’, local non-profit, drop-off recycling cent­ ‘mobilization’ and ‘self-reproducing’ pro­ ers. These were part of a broader project to cess, or ‘contentious’ versus ‘conventional’ restructure capitalism. They were articulated politics. It has led to new insights about par­ within a holistic frame that theorized recy­ allels between institutional phenomena and cling as a way to rebuild community, create collective action processes studied by move­ local closed-loop production and consump­ ment scholars (Wade et al. 1998; Campbell tion, and reduce community dependence 2005; Davis and Zald 2005; Strang and Jung on conglomerates and capitalist commodity 2005). It has led to new understandings of the systems. Yet the commitment of industry and relations between movements, institutions state agencies to a resource recovery logic and organizations, including how institutional that emphasized landfill, waste-to-energy reproduction and diffusion depend on mobi­ programs and large-scale incineration left the lization, political resources and contestation recycling movement isolated and its centers (Thelen 2004; Weber et al. 2008; Sine and Lee without outlets for materials. 2009). It supports research that goes beyond In fact, a viable infrastructure for recy­ analyzing movements as ‘extra-institutional’ cling did not emerge until activists, working producers of multiple logics to consider through the National Recycling Coalition, also how movements and contestation are entered mainstream policy negotiations, products of – and mobilize – contradictions forged ties with solid waste handlers, and and multiple logics or models within fields retheorized recycling as a for-profit service (Strkyer 2000; Seo and Creed 2002; Morrill that built on curb-side programs and comple­ 2006). Indeed, it has let institutionalists mented landfills and incineration. Coupled interested in movements supplement images with grass-roots mobilization against new of change as disruption, conflict and settle­ incinerators, and negotiations with state ment with analyses of how movements also agencies to buy recycled materials, theoriz­ work in an incremental and embedded ing recyclables as commodities transformed

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 289 15/04/17 2:25 PM 290 The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism

cultural beliefs and discourse about waste in resolution (ADR), mobilization for alter­ the industry, creating institutional conditions natives and contestation themselves rested for diffusing recycling practices (see also fundamentally on the presence and recom­ Strang and Meyer 1993; King et al. 2005). bination of multiple logics of practice in the In addition, environmental movements socio-legal field. In this case, institutional served as institutional forces by operating processes of bricolage, hybridization and inside organizations (see Zald and Berger innovation preceded broader mobilization. 1978 for an early statement). The Student Lawyers, social workers, community activists Environmental Action Coalition promoted and judges working at the interstices or over­ recycling within universities by codifying laps between fields during the 1960s drew in arguments, building inter-collegiate net­ an ad hoc fashion on therapeutic techniques, works and disseminating standardized argu­ community mediation and other forms of ments and facts about similar programs non-adversarial negotiating and group dis­ elsewhere. And the College and University cussion to help process minor disputes in Recycling Coordinators provided universi­ small claims, family and other courts. As the ties and colleges with standards and classi­ ‘litigation crisis’ deepened, these early efforts fication schemes for measuring the progress, supported the mobilization of two competing costs and benefits of programs, which helped critical masses of ADR activists – one around deepen discourse and theorization of recy­ a ‘community mediation’ model, the other cling as a rational economic activity. Thus, around the ‘multi-door courthouse’. as Greenwood, Suddaby and Hinings (2002) Both groups devoted considerable energy document for professional associations, into theorizing and disseminating their social movements can create cultural and approach, holding conferences, publishing theoretical foundations for new activities, manifestos in prominent law journals and forms and fields. They can operate within seeking support from foundation or other existing power structures as agents of theo­ established centers. Both also worked hard rization, classification and diffusion, and can to articulate and recombine their models with themselves become infrastructures for those prevailing models and institutions, including processes within fields. Indeed, as recycling the ‘Great Society’ vision of federally funded became institutionalized, the movement community social programs and the increas­ itself blurred into professional association­ ingly ascendant new federalism. Moreover, alism. Activists became recycling employ­ once advocates could articulate ADR with ees; employees used the National Recycling the divorce revolution and no-fault divorce Coalition to form a professional association; as a non-adversarial solution to custody and and the association forged new identities, sta­ interpersonal problems, they gained a lever tuses and procedures for recycling managers for professionalizing mediation and diffus­ within the new field. ing its practices. They used conferences, new Research by Morrill, Creed, Scully and organizations, instructional videos, newslet­ colleagues, and Moore on the institution­ ters and the like to further codify and dis­ alization of alternative dispute resolution, seminate ADR, effectively layering ADR into domestic partner benefits and public science the legal system as an increasingly taken-for- likewise document how movements operate granted complement to conventional legal as forces within mainstream institutions, de- arrangements. emphasizing confrontational tactics in favor Creed, Scully and colleagues’ studies of of their role as mobilizers of multiple log­ gay rights/LGBT activists shed additional ics and as agents or vehicles for recombina- light on how movements working within tion, assembly, translation and diffusion. In existing institutions can help establish new Morrill’s (2006) study of alternative dispute practices by exploiting contradiction and

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 290 15/04/17 2:25 PM Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations 291

multiple logics, importing or redeploying As Moore shows, the institutionalization logics across settings, and articulating or of public science organizations in American recombining new elements with prevail­ politics also rested critically on multiple log­ ing models, myths or concerns (Creed and ics, mobilization by insiders and the role of Scully 2000; Creed et al. 2002; Scully and movements as bricoleuer-agents of recombi­ Segal 2002; Scully and Creed 2005; see also nation and redeployment (Moore 1996, 2013; Raeburn 2004). Decisive here were activ­ Moore and Hala 2002). During the 1960s and ists’ use of contradiction and recombination 1970s, university scientists faced increas­ to disturb taken-for-granted assumptions, ingly severe contradictions between the logic highlight injustice, and legitimate claims for of public service or social utility, on the one reform. For example, activists strategically hand, and the logics of objectivity, non- deployed identity in face-to-face encounters partisanship and detachment as scientists, on with co-workers and supervisors. They used the other. In fact, extant ways of joining sci­ casual mentions of partners’ gendered names ence and politics – serving the public inter­ when sharing experiences of mundane activi­ est by serving the state – had become distinct ties and enacted non-stereotypical behavior liabilities. University scientists not only to challenge stigma. They also employed faced attacks by anti-war and environmental narratives of discrimination or inequality to groups for their connections to the military highlight hypocrisies, evoking understand­ and chemical industry, they also began to ings that everyday routines produce injustice, criticize themselves and their peers for these and activating listeners’ identities as non- connections. prejudiced persons. At first, activists tried to link science In addition, activists used their knowledge and politics and mobilize for change within and status as insiders and loyal corporate citi­ established science associations. But mix­ zens to couch reforms like domestic partner ing partisanship and ‘pure science’ produced benefits as good business practice or expres­ public discord within the scientific commu­ sions of firms’ espoused commitments to nity and directly challenged its legitimacy diversity. Furthermore, like those fighting for as an impartial, objective producer of facts. the federal Employment Non-Discrimination This led scientist-activists to create a hybrid Act, activists within firms imported higher form – the public science organization – that order logics or frames, articulating domestic resolved this tension by recombining ­science partner benefits and other gay friendly poli­ and politics in novel ways. Through dedicated cies with broader civil rights frames, values of organizations like the Union for Concerned fairness and equality, corporate social respon­ Scientists and Scientists’ Institute for Public sibility, and concerns with competitiveness Information, scientists could provide nuclear in an increasingly diverse world. In a sense, safety information, challenge non-scientists’ LGBT movements worked for change by uses of science and address the public simultaneously coming out and fitting in; that interest without risking their credibility as is, by carefully articulating and combining ­scientists by acting in openly partisan ways. difference, assertions of LGBT identity and Moreover, hybrid organizations separate new practices with ‘normal’ everyday life, from professional and political associations insider identities as dutiful corporate citizens, provided activists with a vehicle for public and ongoing organizational concerns. Here science that directed attention away from the too, diffusion of new practices like domestic inner workings of the scientific community, partner benefits was a political process, rest­ letting scientists mobilize politically with­ ing on mobilization, contestation, framing out calling­ their legitimacy as scientists into and the recombination of prevailing models question or sparking conflict within profes­ and cultural elements in and across firms. sional communities.

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 291 15/04/17 2:25 PM 292 The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism

All of these studies highlight rich oppor­ Fortunately, future work on both kinds of tunities for exploring the role of movements movements can exploit existing research on within existing institutions and organizations. how institutional contexts more generally In general, social life is rife with collective shape mobilization and movement efficacy. mobilization, and whether these efforts are made by challengers working as outsiders to redefine existing arrangements, insiders seeking change from within, or elites striving INSTITUTIONAL FIELDS AS CONTEXTS to keep existing structures intact (Fligstein FOR MOVEMENTS 1990, 1996), a focus on movements expands our understanding of institutional dynamics. While the work just described provides rich Moreover, mobilization can occur at the level depictions of movements as agents of institu­ of the field as with anti-corporate forces or tional creation and change, analysts of ‘out­ ecological activists promoting communi­ sider’ and ‘insider’ movements have also paid tarian alternatives to corporate capitalism careful attention to the institutional context of and with scientists forging new associations social movements. They have not only begun to link expertise to politics. Or it can occur to theorize how multiple logics within fields within and between organizations as recy­ can motivate contestation and collective cling advocates pressed for more substan­ action (Stryker 2000; Seo and Creed 2002; tive forms of recycling or as gay and lesbian Morrill 2006; Marquis and Lounsbury 2007), groups pushed for recognition and benefits. but have also considered how existing A focus on movements, therefore, sheds new ­institutional contexts shape mobilization and light on path creation and change, particularly movements’ capacities for producing change. when it attends to the multilevel character­ of Addressing relations between movements, the institutional context. institutional contexts and outcomes lays the To be sure, the distinction between move­ foundation for more sophisticated analyses of ments operating outside and inside fields power and agency. It lets scholars go beyond raises questions for future work about their simple power elite or interest group argu­ different enabling conditions, trajectories or ments about agency and change to consider effects. Insiders will likely pursue different how extant institutions block access, provide tactics and forms of contestation than out­ challengers with levers and openings, and sider groups. They will likely mobilize col­ otherwise condition actors’ ability to translate lectively in different ways, frame problems numbers, resources or organization into and solutions differently, and differentially change. Moreover, in exploring relations negotiate or exploit structures, networks and between movements, contexts and outcomes, institutional frames provided by established institutionalists have made good use of fields. They may also be more likely to err research on political opportunity structure on the conservative side. Conversely, outsid­ (McAdam 1982, 1999; Tarrow 1998) and ers pursuing disruptive activities face legiti­ related arguments about institutional media­ macy dilemmas that may pressure them to tion (Amenta and Zylan 1991; Amenta et al. mobilize as insiders, articulate their projects 1992) and institutional contingency (Thornton with existing institutional logics, or form sep­ and Occasio 1999; Bartley and Schneiberg arate, decoupled organizations for disruptive 2002; Lounsbury 2007), supporting a deepen­ and conventional action (Elsbach and Sutton ing integration of movements research and 1992). As we suggest in section 4, we can also neo-institutional analysis. profitably consider how outsider and insider Work at this interface has identified vari­ movements occur in waves or sequences, ous features of institutional and political producing historical trajectories of change. fields that condition movement dynamics

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 292 15/04/17 2:25 PM Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations 293

or success. These include the legacies of competitiveness, histories of civil rights prior policies, divisions among elites and the ­legislation and favorable (Democratic) allies receptivity of institutional authorities toward in power. It was also more effective in public challengers’ claims, the concentration of opinion climates where new conceptions of resources within a field, and the prevalence of women’s roles in private and public spheres certain cultural models. Work on contexts has prevailed. also shown how the multilevel character of Particularly noteworthy here are findings fields provides openings for challengers, and that public opinion climates enhance pros­ how movements evoke counter-­movements pects for movements, which point beyond within fields. traditional realist formulations about political Davis and colleagues’ studies of share­ opportunity structure to consider how culture holder movements nicely document how shapes mobilization and change. As research success can hinge on the institutional con­ on environmentalism has highlighted, insti­ text (Davis and Thompson 1994; Davis and tutionalized models or logics can be potent Greve 1997; Vogus and Davis 2005). During cultural resources for mobilization, fram­ the 1980s, shareholder activists mobilized to ing and change. Shifts in the recycling field promote new conceptions of the corporation, from a radical, holistic logic to a technocratic transform markets for corporate control and logic facilitated the creation of recycling break managers’ hold over large US firms. advocacy groups in urban regions to con­ They formed new organizations, launched test waste management through incineration takeover actions and used existing govern­ (Lounsbury 2005). More broadly, the diffu­ ance machinery to oust entrenched manag­ sion of environmentalism as a global blue­ ers, relying on their considerable material print for the nation-state has enhanced the resources and connections. Yet activists’ capacity of domestic environmental activists ability to translate resources into change was to organize and slow environmental degrada­ institutionally mediated. The concentration tion (Frank et al. 2000; Hironaka and Schofer of assets held by institutional investors pro­ 2002; Schofer and Hironaka 2005). Formal vided shareholder activists with critical lever­ mechanisms (e.g., impact assessments) and age in firm-level conflicts with management the prevalence globally of environmentalism over the control of corporations. Review by as a valued cultural model have legitimated the US Securities and Exchange Commission environmental movements, fueling organiza­ (SEC) of proxy rules weakened managers’ tion, while creating rhetorical and procedural control over votes and signaled a favorable opportunities for activists to point out failures regulatory stance toward shareholders and and pursue legal actions. reform. State governments dependent on Studies of movements and institutional franchise fees for incorporation were reluc­ contexts have also documented how the mul­ tant to alienate shareholder groups by pass­ tilevel and segmented character of institu­ ing anti-takeover statutes that would deprive tions can create opportunities for movements. them of a key weapon. The multilevel nature of fields is central to Soule and her colleagues likewise trace institutionalist imageries of context (Scott how the ability of the women’s movement 1994, 2001; Scott et al. 2000; Schneiberg and to secure equal rights amendments from Clemens 2006), and bears directly on move­ American states rested on political and ments’ capacities to produce change in organ­ institutional opportunity structures (Soule izations, states and nation-states. As Davis and Olzak 2004; Soule and King 2006). and colleagues’ analyses of shareholder Mobilization for equal rights ­amendments activism show, challengers sometimes have to was more likely to result in ratification mobilize simultaneously at multiple levels to in states with a high level of electoral assert new models and effect change (Davis

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 293 15/04/17 2:25 PM 294 The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism

and Greve 1997; Davis and Thompson 1994; opportunity structures that shape the capa­ Vogus and Davis 2005). Shareholder groups cities of movements within organizations to were mainly interested in promoting new produce change. Ecological activists were conceptions of the corporation and contesting better able to gain footholds for securing entrenched management at the firm (‘lower full-blown recycling programs at larger col­ order’) level. But they quickly found that leges and universities with more resources, they also had to take the fight to the state and selective colleges with histories of activism federal level. Influencing these ‘higher order’ and universities with environmental majors units was essential for challengers’ ability to that could serve as local allies or institutional make change, since state and federal laws set conduits for field-level pressures (Lounsbury the terms for mobilization and access at the 2001; see also King 2008). firm-level, defining rules for proxy systems, Multilevel contexts can even create possi­ takeovers and whether shareholders could bilities for coupling national organizing with act collectively. By blocking anti-takeover mobilizing up, transnationally, and down, legislation, securing new proxy rules and so with transnational structures containing on, shareholder activism at state and federal opportunity structures for pressuring states ­levels created critical opportunities for mobi­ and corporation for change. Developing hand lization against and within corporations. in hand with neoliberalism and ‘the decline Multilevel institutions similarly created of the state’ has been considerable organizing opportunities for anti-corporate groups to reg­ at the transnational level, including the pro­ ulate insurance rates in the American states in liferation of rights discourses, new models the early twentieth century (Schneiberg 1999; of order, associations, governance schemes, Schneiberg and Bartley 2001; Schneiberg and standard-setting organizations, conferences Soule 2005). Challengers seeking to contest and advocacy networks (Meyer et al. 1997; insurance corporations were largely closed Boli and Thomas 1999; Djelic and Quack out of policy making and had little leverage 2003; Djelic and Sahlin-Andersson 2006; for their regulatory ambitions in New York, Bartley 2007; Smith 2008). Such structures Connecticut and other centers of the ‘insur­ and cultural models can serve as platforms ance trust’. But, agrarian states proved more for mobilization, providing environmental, open to populist pressures, which let chal­ anti-sweatshop and civil rights activists with lengers shift venues sideways and enact stat­ leverage in the form of globally accepted ist regulatory measures in Texas and Kansas, prescriptions, environmental impact state­ disrupting the insurance field. Insurers tried to ments, transnational certification schemes, close off access entirely by mobilizing side­ international exposure and the like to place ways and up, suing in state and federal courts new pressures on firms and nations-states to void states’ rights to regulate insurance (e.g., Skretny 2002; Bartley 2007; Hironaka prices. Yet, that strategy backfired when advo­ 2014). They can also serve as platforms for cates of regulation found an unexpected ally sustaining movements when access and in the US Supreme Court, which ruled that mobilization within nations are blocked, pro­ insurance was ‘affected with a public interest’ viding activists venues outside nation-states and thus subject to the states’ authority, pro­ to organize, develop networks, arguments viding activists with venues with leverage to and allies, and with opportunities to mobilize win rate regulation laws in a range of states. attention, criticism and allies transnationally Indeed, the multilevel character of insti­ to exert pressures downward on intransigent tutions can also create possibilities for targets (Keck and Sikkink 1998; Alfinito movements for coupling field-level and Vierira and Quack 2016). intra-organizational mobilization with the Finally, researchers attending to context characteristics of organizations serving as have also found that outcomes are shaped by

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 294 15/04/17 2:25 PM Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations 295

whether or not initial movements catalyze movements’ abilities to translate resources counter-movements within fields. Vogus and into change; and how movements and insti­ Davis’ (2005) study of anti-takeover leg­ tutions co-evolve historically, shaping one islation takes one step in this direction by another over time. Thinking historically and analyzing how managerial and local elites contextually foregrounds how movements counter-organized in response to shareholder are endogenously produced and always insti­ activism to obtain legislation that protected tutionally conditioned. Such an approach corporate managers from raiders and hostile captures the substantial benefits of introduc­ takeovers. Soule and colleagues’ analyses go ing contestation and collective action into one step further. In analyzing states’ adop­ institutional analysis. But it does so while tion of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), avoiding the traps of either invoking move­ they simultaneously include variables for the ments as extra-institutional forces or simply presence or strength of women’s movement using movements to assert agency and aban­ groups (NOW and AAUW) and anti-ERA don institutional context entirely. Such an organizations (Soule and Olzak 2004; Soule approach, in other words, engages, rather and King 2006; see also Soule 2004 on anti- than avoids, the paradoxes of embeddedness hate crime laws). Ingram and Rao (2004) also and analytical impasses involved in explain­ address movements and counter-movements, ing path creation and change (Seo and Creed but elaborate a different research strategy, 2002; Schneiberg 2007). We begin with a analyzing the passage and repeal of legislation discussion of methodological issues, and banning chain stores to get at populist mobi­ then emphasize three major substantive lization and chain store counter-­mobilization ­categories for future research – the outcomes over the rise of new market forms. In this way of movements, heterogeneity and field also the capacities of movements to promote ­overlap and the origins of institutions and change or new path creation rests not just on movements. size, resources or movement strength, but also on the structures – and dynamics – of the political and institutional context. Measuring and Modeling Movements Much work on movements from a neo-insti­ SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND tutional perspective has relied on qualitative NEO-INSTITUTIONAL THEORY: and historical methods, playing to those FUTURE DIRECTIONS methods’ strengths in theory construction and producing a rich body of theory and We conclude our review by discussing new thick description. Supplementing qualitative frontiers for analyzing combinations, interac­ work with multivariate quantitative research tions and sequences of institutional process can not only help systematize theory con­ and social movements as sources of path struction in important ways, it can also help creation and change. Future work, we sug­ clarify causal relations, isolate effects and gest, can and should attend more carefully to strengthen inferences about movement emer­ key methodological issues of measurement gence and outcomes. and modeling. It can also fruitfully consider There are substantial methodological chal­ three substantive issues: how movements lenges involved in documenting movement produce change as political conditions for effects on path creation and change, chal­ diffusion; how opportunity structures charac­ lenges that literally multiply as researchers terized by institutional heterogeneity, multi­ address the moderating influence of exist­ ple institutions or overlapping fields shape ing institutional contexts. At a minimum,

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 295 15/04/17 2:25 PM 296 The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism

documenting effects depends on credibly be implemented empirically in straightfor­ measuring movement development, strength ward ways (Amenta and Zylan 1991; Amenta and activity. Existing research linking et al. 1992; Schneiberg 2002; Soule 2004; movements, organizations and institutions Soule and Olzak 2004). has made real progress here, using the pres­ ence of movement organizations or chapters, counts of movement organizations and the Mobilization Outcomes: number of movement members and chap­ Movements, Politics and Diffusion ters to document movement emergence and strength (e.g., Lounsbury 2001; Schneiberg A second, more substantive direction for 2002; Soule and King 2006; Schneiberg et al. future research revisits the relationship 2008; Lee and Lounsbury 2015). Future work between collective mobilization and diffu­ can also tap such effects by measuring pro­ sion, and reconsiders how movements oper­ tests and other movement activity, or by using ate as political forces in promoting the spread newspaper coverage, public hearings or other of alternatives. Institutionalists have measures of controversy to assess whether addressed numerous cases of diffusion. Yet movements have been able to force issues the spread of innovations and new forms via or new conceptions on the public agenda or conventional institutional dynamics of diffu­ call existing arrangements into question (e.g., sion, emulation and theorization can spark King and Soule 2007). resistance and counter-mobilization by those Documenting movement effects also rests unfamiliar with new practices and by power­ critically on using multivariate approaches to ful vested interests threatened by novel isolate the effects of movement strength or ­practices (Djelic 1998; Fiss and Zajac 2004; activity, mobilizing structures, framing and Schneiberg and Soule 2005; Sanders and institutional or political opportunity struc­ Tuschke 2007). Such counter-attacks can be tures (e.g., Vogus and Davis 2005). Absent covert or openly political, involving the use multivariate designs or careful comparative of state power, and can hinder, halt or even analysis, inferences about movement effects reverse the diffusion of new forms. Under on change remain vulnerable to counter­ these conditions, diffusion is a contested claims about spurious relations. Attending political process, and the unfolding of canon­ explicitly to multiple factors is also particu­ ical diffusion processes may depend on larly important for addressing how exist­ whether or not innovators or advocates can ing institutions and opportunity structures muster political support to place and keep enhance or undermine movements’ capacities alternatives on the agenda (Schneiberg 2013; for influence, disruption and new path crea­ also King et al. 2005; Soule and King 2006). tion. Research on institutions or opportunity Under these conditions, dynamics of diffu­ structures sometimes analyzes those factors sion, exposure and emulation depend on additively. But whether made by movement ­supporters’ abilities to mobilize sufficient scholars or neo-institutionalists, arguments power and resources to secure authorizing about political opportunity and institutional legislation, defend alternatives politically, mediation are fundamentally arguments and so on. Under these conditions, diffusing about interaction effects (Thornton and practices are vulnerable to substantial Occasio 1999; Bartley and Schneiberg 2002; ­modification and editing as they travel Schneiberg and Clemens 2006). They are (Czarniawksa and Joerges 1996; Campbell arguments that political or institutional con­ 2004; Sahlin and Wedlin 2008). figurations amplify or blunt the effects of Djelic’s analysis of the diffusion of movement numbers, resources or activities American mass production across Europe on policies, paths and change. And they can after World War II, and Schneiberg’s study

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 296 15/04/17 2:25 PM Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations 297

of the diffusion of cooperatives across states institutions and outcomes. Political oppor­ and industries in the United States take tunity structure arguments emphasize how two steps toward documenting these rela­ existing institutional structures condition the tions between diffusion and mobilization. effects of movements and mobilization on As Djelic (1998) shows, key conditions and policies and change. Here, politics and power conduits for the diffusion of American cor­ are institutionally contingent (Amenta et al. porate organization were fully in place after 1992; Thornton and Occasio 1999; Schneiberg 1945, including crisis and the discrediting of and Bartley 2001). As institutional systems European models, the undisputed triumph become more open to challengers or provide and legitimation of American models of them with elite allies, movements’ abilities to economic organization, developed networks translate conventional resources into desired between the United States and European outcomes will increase. Favorable institu­ policy ­makers, and extensive theorization of tional contexts amplify the effect of move­ the efficiencies of the vertically integrated ment numbers, organizations or resources on firm. Yet with efforts via the Marshall Plan change outcomes. to transpose the American model into Europe Conceptualizing movements as political sometimes blocked by counter-mobilization forces for diffusion inverts this logic, sug­ by unions and business, conventional diffu­ gesting that institutional dynamics of dif­ sion dynamics only unfolded in countries fusion are politically contingent. Whether where modernizing elites were able to avoid or not actors can adopt, borrow or translate or overcome resistance. Schneiberg (2013) novel forms depends on the capacities of builds on this notion, documenting first that movements to amass political resources, conventional diffusion dynamics of preva­ defend novel forms against counter-attacks, lence, exposure and emulation did fuel the and make or break favorable political con­ spread of cooperative forms across states and texts for the spread of alternatives. Here, industries. Exposure, proximity and preva­ canonical institutional effects depend on lence effects mattered, with cooperatives movement power. Generally speaking, the spreading more extensively in states as they likelihood of an organization adopting a became increasingly common in surrounding new practice increases as professional com­ states, and in industries as they increasingly munities endorse the practice and the num­ populated related industries. Yet with corpo­ ber of prior adopters increase. Professional rations organizing in markets and politics to endorsement and increased prevalence of prevent contagion and break links between practices increase exposure, familiarity and senders and receivers, prevalence effects and legitimacy. But, where novel forms are sub­ the diffusion of cooperatives across states and ject to contestation, diffusion will require the industries depended ultimately on effective mobilization of numbers, resources or organ­ mobilization by Grangers and anti-corporate ization to defend and protect these alterna­ forces to defend these forms. Here, move­ tives. Absent mobilization, endorsement or ments matter not just as a promoter, theorizer prior adoption may have little or no effect or assembler of frames and new forms, but on subsequent adoption. Yet as champions of also as an accumulator of political power – as alternatives mobilize and shift the balance of a bridge or amplifier for diffusion, theori­ power, endorsement and prior adoptions can zation and the like – and thus an essential have increasingly powerful effects on sub­ ­political condition for diffusion (see also sequent adoption, translation or other institu­ Briscoe et al. 2015). tional processes. Considering movements as political condi­ While, our knowledge of how movements tions for diffusion revises conventional views create favorable political contexts for the of the relationship between movements, diffusion and translation of alternatives is

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 297 15/04/17 2:25 PM 298 The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism

relatively undeveloped, future research can them to local, receiving contexts unfold draw on both a multilevel perspective and (Czarniawska and Joerges 1996; Djelic existing strategies for modeling diffusion. 1998; Sahlin and Wedlin 2008). In principle, movements can condition dif­ Fortunately, well-developed quantitative fusion as a political force at either the field tools are available for analyzing movements level or within organizations. They can raise as political conditions for diffusion, provided (or lower) the infectiousness of innovators measures of movement strength or presence and the overall receptivity of organizations are available. To analyze how movements cre­ to new practices by amassing numbers and ate possibilities for diffusion by shifting the resources to contest (or support) field-wide balance of power in fields, models of adop­ authorities, report (or discredit) success tion could employ interaction effects to exam­ stories in media, enhance (or diminish) the ine whether the overall political strength of visibility of new practices, or demonstrate movements moderates the effects on organi­ (or disprove) the possibility of disrup­ zational adoption of prior adoption by tion and change. As movements mobilize peers or endorsement by expert-professionals. effectively at this level, they create politi­ An interaction effects strategy could be cal space for alternatives and multiple log­ employed at the organizational level, pro­ ics across entire fields, increasing the risk vided measures of the presence, strength or of adoption of novel practices in the aggre­ efficacy of movements within organizations gate. Alternatively, movements can enhance are available. Alternatively, one could use receptivity by mobilizing ‘locally’ as politi­ heterogeneous diffusion models (Davis and cal forces within individual organizations, Greve 1997; Strang and Soule 1998; Briscoe making particular organizations or subsets 2015) to see whether increasing movement of organizations more or less susceptible to strength within organizations renders them alternatives that are endorsed or adopted by more susceptible to the influence of peers or peers, and fueling differential flows of novel professions. As Soule’s (2006) study of uni­ practices across organizations. versity divestment shows, student protests on Furthermore, as movements become campuses against investing in South Africa more powerful, they can fuel variation in did not directly promote divestment. But by the practices that diffuse within fields. In increasing awareness among administrators the recycling case, activist groups on cam­ of university and surrounding communities, puses pushed colleges and universities to demonstrations were a nagging reminder that go beyond minimal approaches to recycling rendered colleges and universities more vul­ staffed by part-time custodial staff to adopt nerable to legitimacy pressures, making them programs with full-time ecologically com­ more likely to divest as their peers jumped on mitted coordinators (Lounsbury 2001). In the bandwagon. the insurance case, increasing the political Finally, future research could use existing strength of anti-corporate forces drove some analytical strategies like competing hazards states beyond limited, anti-discrimination models to begin to analyze quantitatively forms of price regulation to fuller control how growing movement strength might pro­ measures that gave regulators authority to mote the diffusion of increasingly varied, evaluate and order changes in rate levels edited or enhanced alternatives (Lounsbury (Schneiberg and Bartley 2001). More gen­ 2001; Schneiberg and Bartley 2001). In this erally, mobilization, growing movement way, too, institutionalists could address how strength and counter-mobilization can yield movements as political forces shape not just substantial editing and refashioning of prac­ the overall flow of practices across fields, but tices as they travel across organizations, also the differential flow of alternatives and fields or nations and as efforts to fit or reject practice variants within them.

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 298 15/04/17 2:25 PM Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations 299

Opportunity Structures Revised: on labor allies and the concordance between Institutional Heterogeneity and environmental ­critiques of liberalism and Overlapping Fields a ‘fair trade’ frame already existing in the US trade policy field, to couple­ environ­ Alternatively, future work could retain the mental and labor issues within a ‘labor–­ conventional imagery of institutions and environmental standards’ frame. Exploiting opportunity structures as contexts for move­ concordance between field frames, activists ment effects, enhancing or diminishing the linked and adapted environmentalism with effects of numbers, organization and activity frames ascendant in the US trade policy on change, but analyze more systematically field to recast political discourse there, get­ how opportunity structures are sometimes ting environmental arguments on the trade constituted by overlapping fields, multiple agenda, while recasting opposition to NAFTA institutions or institutional complexity. This as concerns with environmental degrada­ work could exploit a renewed emphasis in tion and standards in the transnational trade institutional and sociological research on negotiation field. This let challengers defend heterogeneity, field structure, inter-institutional themselves against the protectionist label in systems and the role of linking processes a context where neoliberal frames prevailed. across fields in fueling emergence and change At key steps in the negotiations, activists (Greenwood et al. 2011; Fligstein and were also able to mobilize rule-making link­ McAdam 2012; Padgett and Powell 2012; ages, resource dependencies and networks Thornton et al. 2012). It would also substan­ between non-state fields (environmental and tially develop the central insight of this community organizations) and legislative ­chapter and work by Morrill and others on fields (Congress), and between legislative interstitial emergence that multiple logics, and the US and transnational trade policy fields or institutions represent platforms for fields. During deliberations over authoriza­ mobilizing collective action and for disturb­ tions, activists used those links to help oppo­ ing, delegitimating or challenging existing nents develop claims in Congress about US arrangements. Specifically, future work could plants moving to Mexico to avoid labor and revise imageries of opportunity structure by environmental enforcement, which threw fast analyzing (1) configurations of adjacent or track authorization into doubt and prompted overlapping fields, (2) multiple institutions in the US Trade Representative (USTR) to con­ a setting, or (3) institutional heterogeneity cede a role for environmental organizations within fields, and how they condition or on the USTR advisory committees to the moderate movement effects on change. NAFTA talks. During substantive and sup­ While there is relatively little of this work plemental negotiations, activists used grass­ to date, scholars studying movements have roots mobilization to shift public ­opinion explored the first possibility. In an important against free trade, generating pressure in early effort, Evans and Kay (2008) analyze Congress to vote NAFTA down, and activat­ how opportunity structures as ‘architec­ ing rule-­making linkages between Congress, tures of field overlap’ enabled environ­ the US trade field and ultimately the trans­ mental activists to exploit linkages at the national trade field to force Mexican officials intersection of fields to overcome political to negotiate side agreements for international weakness, gain a place at the NAFTA nego­ standards and enforcement mechanisms. tiating table, and secure side agreements for Mora (2014)’s study of the emergence transnational standards and enforcement. of the Hispanic ethnic category also shows Environmentalists had been closed out of the how overlapping fields provide activists US trade policy and transnational trade nego­ with opportunities to exploit cross-field or tiating fields. Yet they were able to piggyback co-constitutive effects in which changes

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 299 15/04/17 2:25 PM 300 The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism

or dynamics in one field enable, spark and In ongoing work, Mair, Schneiberg and amplify transformations in another. Struggles Wagner (2017) pursue the second possibility over ethnic classification in the state field, for revising opportunity structure arguments, and deepening boundary-spanning advi­ tracing how the presence of multiple insti­ sory board connections among the Census tutions in a setting enabled activists in rural Bureau’s data experts, and organizations like India to leverage cross- or inter-institutional National Council of La Raza and Univision in effects to transform established sanitary prac­ the civil society, media and marketing fields tices of open defecation and public bathing. produced a new ethnic category, Hispanic. As is increasingly common in such efforts, The rise of this category not only transformed the organization spearheading this work the Bureau’s data gathering and reporting relied on local, grassroots mobilization of operations, but also generated an important women in villages. It helped women develop resource that was rapidly appropriated and advocacy skills and organize themselves via transposed from the state into civil soci­ committees to mobilize resources and com­ ety and media fields, producing important mitment for constructing private bathing changes there. In civil society, the new clas­ and flush toilet facilities from and for every sification prompted the NCLR to redefine its household in their village. This effort and the identity as a Hispanic, rather than Chicano, transformation of sanitary practices it sought organization, providing it with categories and involved a substantial enhancement of the data for securing foundation grants to support status, dignity and power of women within community projects and enabling it to recruit villages, potentially eroding some pillars of Mexican Americans, Cuban Americans traditional patriarchy. and Puerto Ricans as a pan-ethnic commu­ Yet the project also re-purposed and lev­ nity. In the media field, this category and eraged the traditional marriage institution data enabled­ Univision to shed its relatively of exchanging brides between villages to marginalized status as a regional player by put added pressures on households via a ‘no reframing itself – and the market – as pan- toilet, no bride’ campaign. Participating vil­ ethnic, and to work with marketing organiza­ lages agreed to take or receive brides from tions to develop information on this market, other villages that signed up to the program. attracting corporate advertisers needed to In effect, activists linked marriage and sani­ fund its expansion. tation and re-purposed marriage institutions In a similar vein, Gastón (2013) traces to alter institutionalized sanitary practices, how links between fields enabled unions in a strategy that substantially increased the Southern California to provoke and use cri­ numbers of new flush toilets constructed and ses in the fields of municipal and community used. This strategy proved particularly effec­ organization to reorder the dynamics of con­ tive in villages where women were poor in tention in the hospitality field. Unions held conventional power resources, suggesting a weak bargaining position in workplace that inter-institutional effect might help chal­ centered-conflicts with Los Angeles area lengers overcome political weakness. hotels that were part of global chains and Developing these insights quantitatively owned by firms that contracted out opera­ would be an important step forward, support­ tions. But they could gain some leverage by ing more direct analyses of whether and how allying with local churches, and with com­ the prospects for movement success and the munity and immigrant rights groups in ‘liv­ effects of numbers, organizations and pro­ ing wage’ campaigns and protests over local tests on outcomes increase (or decrease) in development projects, targeting hotels that the presence of heterogeneity, multiple insti­ were most vulnerable to disruptions in these tutions or overlapping fields. These analy­ proximate domains. ses could deploy well-developed research

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 300 15/04/17 2:25 PM Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations 301

designs, reviewed above, that use multi­ fields contain veto points for actors to exert variate approaches and interaction effects cross field influence. It might even be possi­ to assess whether opportunity structures as ble to use semantic or discourse analyses to overlapping or multiple institutions, logics track the rise or salience of frames in one field or fields moderate the effects of mobilization that might resonate with those in another or and movements’ strengths on outcomes. But to detect parallels or shared terms, arguments charting this new terrain requires developing or rhetoric between field frames ascendant plausible measures of overlap, heterogeneity in proximate domains in order to detect con­ and the structural potentials they create for cordances that contain opportunities to trans­ cross-field effects, inter-institutional lever­ pose or link frames across domains. age or destabilizing dissonance within fields. Greenwood and colleagues (2011) provide One possibility suggested by prior work a framework for doing parallel work on oppor­ (Evans and Kay 2008; Gastón 2013; Mora tunity structures as institutional heterogeneity 2014) involves measuring opportunity struc­ within fields, that is, for analyzing how mul­ tures as field overlap using networks between tiple logics and field structures that refract fields or the dependence of actors or organi­ those logics might expand opportunities for zations in one field on resources held by activists to translate numbers, resources and organizations in another. Trade flows, owner­ organization into success. One possible start­ ship ties, foreign investments, supplier rela­ ing point would use conventional prevalence tionships, shared personnel or membership in measures of forms or discursive terms to tap other organizations all seem potentially useful the salience or spread of logics within fields measures of overlaps, cross-field effects and (see also Schneiberg and Clemens 2006). exposure (e.g., Fiss and Zajac 2004; Sanders In contexts historically characterized by a and Tuschke 2007), as would the extent to dominant logic, tracking the rising counts or which such flows or ties were concentrated proportions over time of organizations adopt­ or not across multiple fields. These measures ing new forms or practices or of the use of could be developed at the organizational level discursive frames that instantiate new logics to assess, for example, whether anti-corporate could provide a crude, but direct measure of activists might have better success in making increasing heterogeneity. In cases less settled numbers and protests count when a target cor­ or when multiple logics are in play, research­ poration depends heavily on other organiza­ ers could instead track the prevalence or tions in one or a small number of proximate proportions of forms or terms tapping each fields for resources, status or personnel. Or logic, and then combine them in conventional they could be developed at the field level to diversity indexes over time. In either case, the assess potential vulnerabilities created by measures produced could be used to assess the aggregate set of ties or dependencies of whether increasing heterogeneity ampli­ organizations in one field to those in proxi­ fies the effects of movements on outcomes, mate fields and by the concentration of those providing activists with increasingly diverse ties within one or a small number of fields, symbolic resources and material practices for a strategy that might even adapt measures of subjecting organizations to new evaluative structural autonomy (Burt 1992). One could standards, fostering dissonance, calling the also envision parallel strategies for tapping legitimacy of existing institutions into ques­ variability in associational or rule-making tion, or forcing them to negotiate new norms linkages between fields, including the number or organizing principles. As Greenwood et al. of regulatory bodies or associations with juris­ (2011) suggest, activists’ ability to subject diction across fields, the extent to which asso­ organizations or key institutions to focused ciations draw members from multiple fields, normative pressures via insurgent logics or whether rule-making structures that span could vary considerably with the structure of

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 301 15/04/17 2:25 PM 302 The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism

fields, including whether different logics are and how are they forged or elaborated over segregated within contained field segments, time? As sociologists have emphasized, there whether field wide associations prevail and is never a clean slate; rather, most new kinds the extent to which decision making author­ of arenas in social life are constructed from ity is dispersed or concentrated within a field. the rubble, or flotsam and jetsam, of previous But these in principle could be coded, meas­ institutions or paths not taken (Stark 1996; ured and incorporated into analyses of oppor­ Schneiberg 2007) or from variations pro­ tunity structures as institutionally complex. duced within extant fields (Lounsbury and Less developed are strategies for measur­ Crumley 2007). After all, as Meyer and ing how multiple institutions in a setting pro­ Rowan (1977: 345) observe in their classic vide leverage for re-purposing or mobilizing piece, ‘the building blocks for organizations inter-institutional effects, highlighting the come to be littered around the social land­ continued need to build such measures from scape; it takes only a little entrepreneurial deep reconstructions of case and context. energy to assemble them into a structure’. Mair, Schneiberg and Wagner (2017) provide Moreover, new systems are rarely created in one example of building a measure of lever­ one fell swoop, through one wave of diffu­ age potential in their study of how activists sion or comprehensive settlements. Rather, used marriage institutions of inter-village paths emerge through multiple waves, over bride exchanges to transform sanitary prac­ time, via sequences or successive stages of tices, tracking for each village the number of translation, layering, theorization and assem­ surrounding villages that embraced new sani­ bly that elaborate and innovate on previous, tary practices and signed on to the ‘no toilet, partial accomplishments (Streeck and Thelen no bride’ campaign. As more villages signed 2005). And at the core of all field and on, the circle of options for non-participating path creation is some sort of collective mobi­ villages narrowed, which enhanced the lever­ lization or movement, not just a single burst age for change traditional marriage practices of organization, but also waves or cycles of provided, and accelerated changes in sanitary mobilization. practices. Deeply rooted in the idiosyncratic The parallels between ­institutionalist characteristics of the case, this measure of imageries of path creation as waves of layer­ opportunity structure as inter-institutional ing, on the one hand, and movement research leverage suggests that future work could on cycles of mobilization and protest, on the fruitfully consider the extent to which other, suggest that linking these two concep­ ­activists capture or achieve closure around tions can provide new insights for future unrelated but pivotal institutions (or targets’ research on path creation and change, add­ level of dependence on those institutions). ing an important historical dimension to Such measures could then permit analyses neo-institutional scholarship. Movement of whether inter-institutional leverage ampli­ scholars have highlighted the sequencing of fies the effects of numbers, organization or social movements and cycles of protest (e.g., ­activity on outcomes, or compensates for Tarrow 1998), tracing, among other things, weakness in those regards. how contentious politics that involve tactics such as protest are transformed into more conventional forms of political action such Origins of Institutions: History, as lobbying (Meyer and Tarrow 1998; also Sequence and Layering Kriesi et al. 1995). Minkoff (1993, 1997) extends the analysis of sequences, adding Centrally important questions in neo- an organizational dimension, and showing institutionalism are where do institutions how the proliferation of radical organizations such as fields, practices or paths come from created a favorable context, legitimacy and

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 302 15/04/17 2:25 PM Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations 303

political opportunities for subsequent organi­ of the alternative orders they had pursued, zation by advocacy and practitioner groups, including theories of order, regulatory frag­ institutionalizing civil rights more deeply in ments, local movement chapters, systems American politics. Such sequences can even of mutual, cooperative and publicly owned involve shifts in scale and loci, including enterprise in key industries. These legacies shifts of movements from outside to inside of previous mobilization, in turn, served institutions as tempered radicals (Meyerson as resources, platforms and infrastructures and Scully 1995) emerge to leverage external for subsequent mobilization in the same or pressures or accomplishments to refashion related industries, first, in the Progressive the workings of organizations from within era, and then in the early New Deal. Indeed, (Zald and Berger 1978; Kellogg 2009; Soule successive waves of reformers and anti-­ 2009), and vice versa, as when activists corporate forces built or transposed alterna­ working inside institutions or organizations tives out from insurance and other sites of find their efforts blocked, and opt instead mutual organization into dairy and grain, to mobilize outside existing organizations electrical utilities and banking, elaborating (Schneiberg 2002, 2017). a secondary path of industrial order in the Institutionalists have just begun to think in US economy. these terms, but efforts to analyze path and Nor are these processes confined to field creation in terms of waves or sequences economic industries or organizations. As of mobilization, institutional development Armstrong (2002, 2005) illustrates, the leg­ and layering, with outcomes of earlier mobi­ acy of initial movements may also include lizations producing inputs for later efforts. the establishment of new identities, cultural Lounsbury, Ventresca and Hirsh (2003) tools such as frames and logics, and ‘crea­ took one step in this direction, showing how tive contexts’ that enable subsequent groups efforts by ‘outsider’ environmental move­ to continue struggles, mobilize and realize ments in the 1960s and 1970s to restructure new gains in their efforts. The rise of the capitalism via not-for-profit, community New Left in the 1960s enabled the creation based recycling centers unintentionally laid of new kinds of lesbian/gay organizational foundations for subsequent mobilization by identities in San Francisco in the early 1970s. insider groups in the 1980s to create a for- The development of gay identity politics, in profit recycling industry. Most non-profit turn, proved crucial both in the proliferation recycling centers proved economically non- of lesbian/gay organizations and in enabling viable, but they nonetheless trained a gen­ change within mainstream organizations eration of Americans in the habits of saving, such as the establishment of domestic part­ cleaning and sorting their trash, a critical ner benefits (Creed and Scully 2000; Scully ­cultural infrastructure for the creation of and Creed 2005). And as Alfinito Vieira and ­markets based on curb-side pick up. Quack (2016) show in their study of indig­ Schneiberg (2007, 2013, 2017) likewise enous movements in Brazil, sequences of moves in this direction in analyzing efforts mobilization and institutional development by populist and radical anti-corporations to can unfold across levels, supporting changes restructure American corporate capitalism in virtually impossible under initial conditions. the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen­ Through the late 1960s, indigenous peoples turies. For the most part, these movements in Brazil were fully disenfranchised under a faced decisive defeats in their efforts to con­ ‘tutorship regime’ and military dictatorship test corporate capitalism and collapsed. But that denied claims to land, sought to eradicate even though defeated, they nevertheless left indigenous identities and drove indigenous behind a variety of organizational, cultural communities off traditional domains into and institutional legacies – bits and pieces reservations. These policies also forced into

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 303 15/04/17 2:25 PM 304 The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism

exile the anthropologists who might publi­ ongoing struggle and contestation. This con­ cize this state of affairs, inadvertently fueling ceptualization of institutionalization and the formation of a transnational network of fields as multiple, fragmented and contested critical anthropologists, deepening ties and and is a crucial ontological starting point for institutional cross-referencing between this a new wave and generation of institutional network, liberation theology missionaries scholars. And when combined with a renewed and international journalists, and a series attention to movements, it directs analytical of key institutional developments. These attention to how historical legacies of prior included the Barbados Declaration, which social action become embedded in existing articulated a critique of indigenism in Latin fields, providing bases for sequences of mobi­ America, the organization of the Indigenous lization, and the construction of new paths Missionary Council by progressive Jesuits from the elements or ruins of old or forgotten to help communities advance land claims, orders. Early work in this direction has and the formation of indigenous support proven fruitful and promises to propel institu­ organizations. They also included reports by tional analysis for many years to come. international journalists, NGOs and even the state’s own bureaucracy that embarrassed the regime, subjected it to growing legitimacy pressures, and prompted defensive reforms, REFERENCES most notably the Indigenous Statute, in an effort to demonstrate the regime’s alignment Alfinito Vieira, A. and Quack, S. 2016). Trajectories of with indigenous rights. That statute had little transnational mobilization for indigenous rights in Brazil: Rediscovering the role of forgotten political immediate relevance for indigenous commu­ actors. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 56, nities. But along with the support organiza­ 380–394. tions and National Assemblies, it created Amenta, E., Carruthers, B. and Zylan, Y. (1992). opportunity structures in Brazil that enabled A hero for the aged? The Townsend movement, the indigenous movement to advance and the political mediation model, and the U.S. old- age policy, 1934–1950. American Journal of Soci- secure measures during democratization and ology, 98, 308–339. the National Constitutional Assembly that Amenta, E. and Zylan, Y. (1991). It happened here: institutionalized indigenous identities and Political opportunity, the new institutionalism­ and claims to land in the new constitution. the Townsend movement. American Sociological Review, 56, 250–265. Armstrong, E.A. (2002). Crisis, collective creativity, and the generation of new organizational forms: CONCLUSION The transformation of lesbian/gay organizations in San Francisco. Research in the Sociology of Organ- izations, 19, 369–406. Overall, the approach to movements and Armstrong, E.A. (2005). From struggle to ­settlement: institutions that we advocate celebrates the The crystallization of a field of ­lesbian/gay organi- heterogeneity of actors, multiple logics and zations in San Francisco, 1969–1973. In G.F. Davis, practice variation. A focus on such multiplic­ D. McAdam, W.R. Scott and M.N. Zald (eds), Social Movements and Organization Theory. Cambridge: ity revises the isomorphic imagery of the ­Cambridge University Press. pp. 161–188. canonical two-stage diffusion and punctuated Baron, J.P., Dobbin, F. and Jennings, P.D. (1986). War equilibrium models. Such a perspective con­ and peace: The evolution of modern personnel centrates less on the contagion of unitary administration in U.S. industry. American Journal of practices or a singular rationality, but rather Sociology, 92, 250–283. Bartley, T. (2007). Institutional emergence in an era of on multiple forms of rationality that inform globalization: The rise of transnational private the decision making of actors in fields regulation of labor and environmental conditions. (Bourdieu 1984), and provide foundations for American Journal of Sociology­ , 113, 297–351.

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 304 15/04/17 2:25 PM Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations 305

Bartley, T. and Schneiberg, M. (2002). Rationality and Politics in the United States, 1890–1925. Chicago, institutional contingency: The varying politics of IL: University of Chicago­ Press. economic regulation in the fire insurance industry. Clemens, E.S. and Cook, J. (1999). Politics and insti- Sociological Perspectives, 45(1), 47–79. tutionalism: Explaining durability and change. Beckert, J. (1999). Agency, entrepreneurs, and insti- Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 441–466. tutional change. The role of strategic choice and Colyvas, J. and Powell, W. (2006). Roads to institu- institutionalized practices in organizations. Organ- tionalization. Research in Organizational Behavior, ization Studies, 20, 777–799. 27, 305–353. Bertels, S., Hoffman, A.J, and DeJordy, R. (2014). The Creed, W.E.D. and Scully, M.A. (2000). Songs of varied work of challenger movements: Identifying ourselves: Employees’ deployment of social iden- challenger roles in the US environmental move- tity in workplace encounters. Journal of Manage- ment. Organization Studies, 35, 1171–1210. ment Inquiry, 9, 391–412. Boli, J. and Thomas, G. (eds) (1999). Constructive Creed, W.E.D., Scully, M.A. and Austin, J.R. (2002). World Culture: International Nongovernmental Clothes make the person: The tailoring of legiti- Organizations Since 1875. Stanford, CA: Stanford mating accounts and the social construction of University Press. identity. Organization ­Science, 13, 475–496. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of Czarniawska, B. and Joerges, B. (1996). Travels of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard ideas. In B. Czarniawska and G. Sevón (eds), Trans- University Press. lating Organizational Change. New York: Walter Briscoe, F. (2015). STATA heterogeneous diffusion­ de Gruyter. pp 13–47. routine.[online]. Available at: www.personal.psu. Davis, G.F. and Greve, H.R. (1997). Corporate elite edu/fsb10/index/STATA-hdiff.html [accessed 6 networks and governance changes in the 1980s. November 2015]. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 1–37. Briscoe, F., Gupta, A. and Anner, M. (2015). Social Davis, G.F. and Thompson, T. (1994). A social move- activism and practice diffusion: How activist tactics ment perspective on corporate control. Adminis- affect non-targeted organizations. Administrative trative Science Quarterly, 39, 141–173. Science Quarterly, 60: 300–332. Davis, G.F. and Zald, M.N. (2005). Social change, Briscoe, F. and Safford, S. (2008). The Nixon-in-China social theory, and the convergence of movements effect: Activism, imitation, and the institutionaliza- and organizations. In G.F. Davis, D. McAdam, W.R. tion of contentious practices. Administrative Sci- Scott and M.N. Zald (eds), Social Movements and ence Quarterly, 53, 460–491. Organization Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Struc- versity Press. pp. 335–350. ture of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard De Bakker, F., Hond, R., King, B. and Weber, K. University Press. (2013). Social movements, civil society and corpo- Campbell, J. (2004). Institutional Change and rations. Organization Studies, 34(5–6), 573–593. Globalization. Princeton, PJ: Princeton University­ den Hond, F. and de Bakker, F.G.A. (2007). Ideologi- Press. cally motivated activism: How activist groups influ- Campbell, J. (2005). Where do we stand? Common ence corporate social change activities. Academy mechanisms in organizations and social move- of Management Review, 32, 901–924. ments research. In G.F. Davis, D. McAdam, W.R. DiMaggio, P.J. (1988). Interest and agency in institu- Scott and M.N. Zald (eds), Social Movements and tional theory. In Lynne Zucker (ed.), Institutional Organization Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- Patterns and Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Ball- versity Press. pp. 41–68. inger. pp. 3–22. Carroll, G.R. and Swaminathan, A. (2000). Why the Djelic, M. (1998). Exporting the American Model: microbrewery movement? Organizational dynamics Postwar Transformations of European Business. of resource partitioning in the U.S. brewing indus- Oxford: Oxford University Press. try. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 715–762. Djelic, M. and Quack, S. (eds) (2003). Globalization Carruthers, B.G. and Babb, S. (1996). The color of and Institutions. Redefining the Rules of the Eco- money and the nature of value: Greenbacks and nomic Game. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. gold in Postbellum America. American Journal of Djelic, M. and Sahlin-Andersson, K. (eds) (2006). Sociology, 101, 1556–1591. Transnational Governance: Institutional Dynamics Clemens, E.S. (1993). Organizational repertoires and of Regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University institutional change: Womens’ groups and the Press. transformation of U.S. ­politics, 1890–1920. Amer- Dobbin, F. and Dowd, T. (1997). How policy shapes ican Journal of Sociology­ , 98, 755–798. competition: Early railroad foundings in Massa- Clemens, E.S. (1997). The People’s Lobby: Organiza- chusetts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, tional Innovation and the Rise of Interest Group 501–529.

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 305 15/04/17 2:25 PM 306 The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism

Edelman, L.B. (1990). Legal environments and organi- Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R. and Hinings, C.R. zational governance: The expansion of due process (2002). Theorizing change: The role of profes- in the American workplace. American Journal of sional associations in the transformation of institu- Sociology, 95, 1401–1440. tional fields. Academy of Management Journal, Edelman, L.B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic 45, 58–80. structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights Hardy, C. and Maguire, S. (2008). Discourse, field- law. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1531–1576. configuring events, and change in organizations Edelman, L.B. (2006). Constructed legalities: The and institutional fields: Narratives of DDT and the endogeneity of law. In W. Powell and D. Jones Stockholm Convention. Academy of Management (eds), How Institutions Change. ­Chicago, IL: Journal, 53, 1365–1392. University of Chicago Press. Hiatt, S., Grandy, J. and Lee B. (2015). Organizational Elsbach, K. and Sutton, R. (1992). Acquiring organi- responses to public and private politics: An analy- zational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: sis of climate change activists and U.S. oil and gas A marriage of institutional and impression man- firms. Organization ­Science, 26, 1769–1786. agement theories. Academy of Management Jour- Hironaka, A. (2014). Greening the Globe: World nal, 4, 699–738. Society and Environmental Change. Cambridge: Evans, R. and Kay, T. (2008). How environmentalists Cambridge University Press. ‘greened’ trade policy: strategic action and the Hironaka, A. and Schofer, E. (2002). Decoupling in architecture of field overlap. ­American Sociological the environmental arena: The case of environmen- Review 73, 970–91. tal impact assessments. In A. Hoffman and Fiss, P.C. and Zajac, E.J. (2004). The diffusion of ideas M. Ventresca (eds), Organizations, Policy and the over contested terrain: The (non)adoption of a Natural Environment. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni- shareholder value orientation among German firms. versity Press. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49 pp. 501–534. Hoffman, A. (1999). Institutional evolution and Fligstein, N. (1990). The Transformation of ­Corporate change: Environmentalism and the US Chemical Control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42, Fligstein, N. (1996). A political-cultural approach to 351–71. market institutions. American Sociological Review, Hwang, H. and Powell, W.W. (2005). Institutions and 61, 656–673. entrepreneurship. In S.A. Alvarez, R. Agarwal and Fligstein, N. (2001). The Architecture of ­Markets: An O. Sorenson (eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Economic Sociology of Twenty-First-Century Capi- Research. Dordrecht: Kluwer. pp. 179–210. talist Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Ingram, P. and Rao, H. (2004) Store wars: The enact- Press. ment and repeal of anti-chain store legislation in Fligstein, N. and McAdam, D. (2012). A Theory of America. American Journal of Sociology, 110, Fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 446–487. Frank, D.B., Hironaka, A. and Schofer, E. (2000). Ingram, P., Yue, L.Q. and Rao, H. (2010). Trouble in Environmentalism as a global institution. American store: Probes, protests and store openings by Wal- Sociological Review, 65, 122–127. Mart: 1998–2005. American Journal of Sociology, Galaskiewicz, J. and Wasserman, S. (1989). Mimetic 116, 53–92. processes within an interorganizational field: An Jepperson, R. (1991). Institutions, institutional empirical test. Administrative Science Quarterly, effects, and institutionalism. In W.W. Powell and 34, 454–479. P.J. DiMaggio (eds), The New Institutionalism in Garud, R. and Karnoe, P. (eds) (2001). Path Depend- Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of ence and Creation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Chicago Press. pp, 143–163. Erlbaum. Keck, M.E. and Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Gastón, P. (2013). Community and union: Politicizing Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Poli- workplace conflict in the finance era. Social Sci- tics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University­ Press. ence History Association, Chicago, November Kellogg, K.C. (2009). Operating room: relational 2013. spaces and microinstitutional change in surgery. Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C.R. (1996). Understand- American Journal of Sociology, 115, 657–711. ing radical organizational change: Bringing together King, B.G. (2008). A political mediation model of the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of corporate response to social movement activism. Management Review, 21, 1022–1054. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 395–421. Greenwood R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta,­ King, B.G., Cornwall, M. and Dahlin, E.C. (2005). E.R. and Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional com- Winning woman suffrage one step at a time: plexity and organizational responses. Academy of Social movements and the logic of the legislative Management Annals, 5, 317–371. process. Social Forces, 83, 1211–1234.

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 306 15/04/17 2:25 PM Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations 307

King B.G. and Pearce, N.A. (2011). The contentious- HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Acad- ness of markets: Politics, social movements, and emy of Management Journal, 47(5), 657–679. institutional change in markets. Annual Review of Mair, J., Schneiberg, M. and Wagner, S. (2017). No Sociology, 36, 249–267. toilet, no bride: Gender power, inter-institutional King, B.G. and Soule, S.A. (2007). Social movements­ leverage and sanitary practices in rural India. as extra-institutional entrepreneurs: The effect of Unpublished ms. protests on stock price returns. Administrative Sci- Marquis, C. and Lounsbury, M. (2007). Vive la ence Quarterly, 52, 413–442. résistance: Competing logics and the consolidation Kriesi, H., Koopmans, R., Duyvendak, J.W. and of U.S. community banking. ­Academy of Manage- Giugni, M.G. (1995). The Politics of New Social ment Journal, 50, 799–820. Movements in Western Europe: A Comparative McAdam, D. (1982). Political Process and the Devel- Analysis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minne- opment of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970. Chicago, sota Press. IL: University of Chicago Press. Lampel, J. and Meyer, A.D. (2008). Field-­configuring McAdam, D. (1988). Freedom Summer. Oxford: events as structuring mechanisms: How confer- Oxford University Press. ences, ceremonies, and trade shows constitute McAdam, D. (1999). Political Process and the Devel- new technologies. Journal of Management Stud- opment of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970, revised ies, 45, 1025–1035. edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Laraña, E., Johnston, H. and Gusfield, J.R. (eds) McAdam, D., McCarthy, J.D. and Zald, M.D. (1996). (1994). New Social Movements: From Ideology to Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. Identity. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. NY: Cambridge University Press. Lawrence, T.B., Leca, B. and Zilber, T.B. (2013). Insti- McAdam, D. and Scott, W.R. (2005). Organizations tutional work: Current research, new directions and movements. In G.F. Davis, D. McAdam, W.R. and overlooked issues. Organization Studies, 34, Scott and M.N. Zald (eds), Social Movements and 1023–1033. Organization Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- Lee, M.D. and Lounsbury, M. (2015). Filtering institu- versity Press. pp. 4–40. tional logics: Community logic variation and differ- McDonnell, M.H. and King, B. (2013). Keeping up ential responses to the institutional complexity of appearances: Reputation threat and prosocial toxic waste. Organization Science, 26, 847–866. responses to social movement ­boycotts. Adminis- Lounsbury, M. (2001). Institutional sources of prac- trative Science Quarterly, 58, 387–419. tice variation: Staffing college and university recy- McDonnell, M.H., King, B.G. and Soule, S.A. (2015). cling programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, A dynamic process model of contentious politics: 46, 29–56. Activist targeting and corporate receptivity to Lounsbury, M. (2005). Institutional variation in the social challenges. American Sociological Review, evolution of social movements: Competing logics 80, 654–678. and the spread of recycling advocacy groups. In Meyer, D.S. and Tarrow, S. (eds) (1998). The Social G.F. Davis, D. McAdam, W.R. Scott and M.N. Zald Movement Society. Lanham, MD: Rowman and (eds), Social Movements and Organization Theory. Littlefield. Cambridge: ­Cambridge University Press. pp. Meyer, J.W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. and Ramirez, F. 73–95. (1997). World society and the nation-state. Ameri- Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: Compet- can Journal of Sociology, 103, 144–181. ing logics and practice variation in the profession- Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized alizing of mutual funds. Academy­ of Management organizations: Formal structure as myth and Journal, 50(2): 289–307. ceremony. American Sociological Review, 83, Lounsbury, M. and Crumley, E.T. (2007). New prac- 340–363. tice creation: An institutional approach to innova- Meyerson, D.E, and Scully, M.A. (1995). Tempered tion. Organization Studies, 28, 993–1012. radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and Lounsbury, M. and Glynn, M.A. (2001). Cultural change. Organization Science, 6 (5), 585–600. entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy and the Minkoff, D.C. (1993). The organization of ­survival: acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Women’s and racial-ethnic voluntarist and activist Journal, 22, 545–564. organizations, 1955–1985. Social Forces, 71, Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M.J. and Hirsch, P.M. 887–908. (2003). Social movements, field frames and indus- Minkoff, D.C. (1997). The sequencing of social try emergence: A cultural-political perspective of movements. American Sociological Review, 62, U.S. recycling. Socio Economic Review, 1, 71–104. 779–799. Maguire, S., Hardy, C. and Lawrence, T.B. (2004). Moore, K. (1996). Organizing integrity: American Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: science and the creation of public interest­

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 307 15/04/17 2:25 PM 308 The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism

organizations, 1955–1975. American Journal of Schneiberg, M. (2002). Organizational heterogeneity Sociology, 101, 1592–1627. and the production of new forms: Politics, social Moore, K. (2013). Disrupting Science: Social Movements, movements and mutual companies­ in American American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, fire insurance, 1900–1930. Research in the Sociol- 1945–1975. Princeton,­ NJ: Princeton University Press. ogy of Organizations, 19, 39–89. Moore, K. and Hala, N. (2002). Organizing identity: Schneiberg, M. (2005). Combining new institutional- The creation of science for the people. Research in isms: Explaining institutional change in American the Sociology of Organizations, 19, 311–343. property insurance. Sociological Forum, 1, 93–137. Mora, G.C. (2014). Cross-field effects and ethnic Schneiberg, M. (2007). What’s on the path? Path classification: The institutionalization of Hispanic dependence, organizational diversity and the prob- panethnicity, 1965 to 1990. American Sociological lem of institutional change in the US economy, Review, 79, 183–210. 1900–1950. Socio-­Economic Review, 5, 47–80. Morrill, C. (2006). Institutional change and interstitial Schneiberg, M. (2013). Movements as political condi- emergence: The growth of alternative dispute tions for diffusion: Anti-corporate movements and resolution in American law, 1965–1995. In W. the spread of cooperative forms in American capi- Powell and D. Jones (eds), How Institutions talism. Organization Studies, 34, 653–82. Change. Chicago, IL: University­ of Chicago Press. Schneiberg, M. (forthcoming 2017). Resisting and Meyerson, D and Scully, M. (1995). Tempered Radical- regulating corporations through ecologies of alter- ism and the Politics of Ambivalence and Change. native enterprise: Insurance and electricity in the Organization Science, 6: 585–600. US case. In A. Spicer and G. Baars (eds), The Cor- Padgett, J.F. and Powell, W.W. (2012). The Emer- poration: A Critical, Interdisciplinary Handbook. gence of Organizations and Markets. Princeton, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. NJ: Princeton University Press. Schneiberg, M. and Bartley, T. (2001). Regulating Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path depend- American industries: Markets, politics, and the insti- ence, and the study of politics. American Political tutional determinants of fire insurance regulation. Science Review, 94, 251–267. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 101–146. Raeburn, N. (2004). Inside Out: The Struggle for Schneiberg, M. and Soule, S.A. (2005). Institution- Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Rights in the Workplace. alization as a contested, multilevel process: The Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. case of rate regulation in American fire insurance. Rao, H. (1998). Caveat emptor: The construction of In G.F. Davis, D. McAdam, W.R. Scott and M.N. nonprofit consumer watchdog organizations. Zald (eds), Social Movements and Organization American Journal of Sociology, 103, 912–961. Theory ­Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rao, H., Monin, P. and Durand, R. (2003). Institu- pp. 122–160. tional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an Schneiberg, M. and Clemens, E.S. (2006). The typical identity movement in French gastronomy. Ameri- tools for the job: Research strategies in institu- can Journal of Sociology, 4, 795–843. tional analysis. Sociological Theory, 3, 195–227. Rao, H., Morrill, C. and Zald, M.N. (2000). Power Schneiberg, M., King, M. and Smith, T. (2008). Social plays: Social movements, collective action and movements and organizational form: Cooperative new organizational forms. Research in Organiza- alternatives to corporations in the American insur- tional Behavior, 22, 237–282. ance, dairy and grain industries. American Socio- Rao, H., Yue, L.Q. and Ingram, P. (2011). Laws of logical Review, 73: 635–667. attraction: Regulatory arbitrage in the face of Schofer, E. and Hironaka, A. (2005). The effects of activism in right-to-work states. American Socio- world society on environmental protection out- logical Review, 76, 365–385. comes. Social Forces, 84, 25–47. Sahlin, K. and Wedlin, L. (2008). Circulating ideas: Schofer, E. and Meyer. J. (2005). The worldwide expan- Imitation, translation and editing. In R. Greenwood, sion of higher education in the twentieth century. C. Oliver, R. Suddaby and K. Sahlin-Andersson American Sociological Review, 70, 898–920. (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Insti- Scott, W.R. (1994). Conceptulizing organizational tutionalism. London: Sage. pp. 220–242. fields: Linking organizations and societal systems. Sanders, G. and Tuschke, A. (2007). The adoption of In Hans-Ulrich Derlien, Uta Gerhardt and Fritz W. institutionally contested practices: The emergence Scharpf (eds), Systemrationalitat und Partial Inter- of stock option pay in ­Germany. Academy of Man- esse. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Verlagsgells- agement Journal, 50, 33–56. chaft. pp. 203–221. Schneiberg, M. (1999). Political and institutional Scott, W.R. (2001). Institutions and Organizations, conditions for governance by association: Private 2nd edn. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. order and price controls in American fire Scott, W.R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P. and Caronna, C. insurance. Politics and Society, 27, 67–103. (2000). Institutional Change and Organizations:

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 308 15/04/17 2:25 PM Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations 309

Transformation of a Healthcare Field. Chicago, IL: Stark, D. (1996). Recombinant property in East Euro- University of Chicago Press. pean capitalism. American Journal of Sociology, Scully, M. and Creed, W.E.D. (2005) Subverting our 101, 993–1027. stories of subversion. In G. Davis, D. McAdam, Streeck, W. and Thelen, K. (2005). Beyond Continu- W.R. Scott and M. Zald (eds), Social Movements ity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political and Organizational Theory. New York: Cambridge Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. University Press. pp. 310–332. Stryker, R. (2000). Legitimacy processes as institu- Scully, M. and Segal, A. (2002). Passion with an umbrella: tional politics: Implications for theory and research Grassroots activists in the workplace. Research in the in the sociology of organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 19, 127–170. Sociology of Organizations, 17, 179–223. Seo, M. and Creed, W.E.D. (2002). Institutional Sutton, J.R. and Dobbin, F. (1996). Responses to legal contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: uncertainty in U.S. firms, 1955 to 1985. American A dialectical perspective. Academy of Manage- Sociological Review, 61, 794–811. ment Review, 27, 222–247. Sutton, R., Dobbin, F., Meyer, J.W. and Richard Scott, Sine, W.D. and Lee, B.H. (2009). Tilting at windmills? W. (1994). The legalization of the workplace. The environmental movement and the emergence American Journal of Sociology, 99, 944–971. of the U.S. wind energy sector. Administrative Sci- Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in Movement: Social Move- ence Quarterly, 54, 123–155. ments and Contentious Politics, 2nd edn. New Skretny, J. (2002). The Minority Rights Revolution. York: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thelen, K. (2004). How Institutions Evolve: The Political Smith, J. (2008). Social Movements for Global Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain,­ the United Democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press. States and Japan. New York, Cambridge University Soule, S. (2004). Going to the chapel? Same-sex Press. marriage bans in the United States, 1973–2000. Thornton, P.H. and Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional Social Problems, 4, 453–477. logics and the historical contingency of power in Soule, S. (2006). Divestment by colleges and univer- organizations: Executive succession in the higher sities in the United States: institutional pressures education publishing industry, 1958–1990. Ameri- toward isomorphism. In W. Powell and D. Jones can Journal of Sociology, 105, 801–843. (eds), How Institutions Change. Chicago, IL: Uni- Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W. and Lounsbury, M. (2012). versity of Chicago Press. The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Soule, S.A. (2009). Contention and Corporate Social Approach to Culture, Structure and Process. Responsibility. New York, NY: ­Cambridge Univer- Oxford: Oxford University Press. sity Press. Tolbert, P.S. and Zucker, L.G. (1983). Institutional sources Soule, S. and Olzak, S. (2004). When do movements of change in the formal structure of organizations: matter? The politics of contingency and the Equal The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Rights Amendment. American Sociological Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 22–39. Review, 69, 473–97. van Wijk, J., Stam, W., Elfring, T., Zietsma, C. and den Soule, S. and King, B. (2006). The stage of the policy pro- Hond, F. (2013). Activists and incumbents structur- cess and the Equal Rights ­Amendment, 1972–1982. ing change: The interplay of agency, culture, and American Journal of Sociology­ , 6, 1871–1909. networks in field evolution. Academy of Manage- Strang, D. and Chang, M.Y. (1993). The International ment ­Journal, 56, 358–386. Labor Organization and the welfare state: Institutional Vasi, I.B. and King, B. (2012). Social movements, risk effects on national welfare spending, 1960–1980. perceptions, and economic outcomes.­ American International Organization, 47, 235–262. Sociological Review, 77, 573–596. Strang, D. and Meyer, J.W. (1993). Institutional con- Vasi, I.B., Walker, E.T., Johnson, J.S. and Tan, H.F. ditions for diffusion. Theory and Society, 22, (2015). No fracking way! Documentary film, discur- 487–512. sive opportunity, and local ­opposition against Strang, D. and Jung, D. (2005). Organizational hydraulic fracturing in the United States, 2010 to change as an orchestrated social movement: 2013. American Sociological Review, 80, 934–959. Recruitment to a corporate quality initiative. In G.F. Vogus, T.J. and Davis, G.F. (2005). Elite mobilizations Davis, D. McAdam, W.R. Scott and M.N. Zald (eds), for antitakeover legislation, 1982–1990. In G.F. Social Movements and Organization Theory. Cam- Davis, D. McAdam, W.R. Scott and M.N. Zald (eds), bridge: Cambridge­ University Press. pp. 280–309. Social Movements and Organization Theory. Cam- Strang, D. and Soule, S.A. (1998). Diffusion in bridge: Cambridge­ University Press. pp. 96–121. organizations and social movements: From hybrid Wade, J.B., Swaminathan, A. and Saxon, M.S. (1998). corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, Normative and resource flow consequences­ of local 24, 265–290. regulations in the American brewing industry,

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 309 15/04/17 2:25 PM 310 The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism

1845–1918. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, their role in instigating institutional change. 905–935. Organization Studies, 35, 1449–1472. Walker, E.T. (2014). Grassroots for Hire: Public Affairs Yue, L.Q. (2015). Community constraints on the effi- Consultants in American Democracy. Cambridge: cacy of elite mobilization: The issuance of currency Cambridge University Press. substitutes during the Panic of 1907. American Walker, E.T. and Rea, C.M. (2014). The political mobi- Journal of Sociology, 120, 1–46. lization of firms and industries. Annual Review of Zald, M.N. and Berger, M.A. (1978). Social move- Sociology, 40, 281–304. ments in organizations: Coup d’état, insurgency, Weber, K., Heinze, K.L. and deSoucey, M. (2008). and mass movements. American Journal of Sociol- Forage for thought: Mobilizing codes in the move- ogy, 83, 823–861. ment for grass-fed meat and dairy products. Zald, M.N. and Lounsbury, M. (2010). The ­Wizards of Administrative Science Quarterly­ , 53, 529–567. Oz: Towards an institutional approach to elites, Werner, M.D. and Cornelissen, J.P. (2014). Framing expertise and command posts. Organization Studies, the change: Switching and blending frames and 31, 963–996.

BK-SAGE-GREENWOOD_OLIVER-170048-Chp11.indd 310 15/04/17 2:25 PM