The Institutional Work Behind the Technocratic Antidoping System
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244018780954SAGE OpenMeier and Reinold 780954research-article20182018 SAGE Open - Research Paper SAGE Open April-June 2018: 1 –17 Immunizing Inefficient Field Frames © The Author(s) 2018 https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018780954DOI: 10.1177/2158244018780954 for Mitigating Social Problems: journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo The Institutional Work Behind the Technocratic Antidoping System Henk E. Meier1 and Marcel Reinold1 Abstract Although the heavily expanded technocratic doping test system has failed to detect the most spectacular cases of performance enhancement and to eradicate doping as social problem, it enjoys social fact quality. Research presented here argues that the taken-for-granted character of the technocratic test system represents a prime example of institutional work. The technocratic test system became institutionalized and maintained because the agendas of field actors converged around a field frame, enjoying cultural resonance and, at first, strong pragmatic viability. The specific methods of frame stabilization employed by actors interested in institutional maintenance served to stabilize unrealistic policy expectations. The article aims to support these ideas by analyzing the trajectory of antidoping in the International Olympic Committee (IOC) based on rich archival sources. Keywords field frames, institutional work, doping, International Olympic Committee, technocratic approach Doping is making headlines again. After whistle-blowers detection” (Ayotte, Parkinson, Pengilly, Ryan, & Pound, revealed systematic doping practices, parts of the Russian 2012, Appendix B, p. 1). However, strikingly, these flaws did team were suspended from the Olympic Games in Rio de not provoke debates about the raison d’être of the test Janeiro, 2016. Before, the sport world had seen major doping system. scandals, such as, revelations about East Germany’s large- Rather, as Jedlicka and Hunt (2013) have convincingly scale state doping program, the Festina scandal during the argued, the technocratic approach to mitigate doping by 1998 Tour de France, the Fuentes affair, and the fall of using a sophisticated test system has assumed the quality of cycling idol Lance Armstrong (Dimeo, 2014). This article is an unquestioned social fact, enjoying wide diffusion across motivated by fact that none of these scandals has been organizations involved in antidoping policies. The current detected by the heavily expanded technocratic doping test piece of research concurs with Jedlicka and Hunt (2013) but system. Without denying that the test system has achieved does not aim to trace policy diffusion and organizational iso- some successes, these revelations about undetected miscon- morphism. In contrast, we aim to explore how technocratic duct indicate serious flaws of the test system. Whereas antidoping policies could assume such a taken-for-granted research on athletes’ perception of the likelihood of detection status that they continue to become radicalized even in face by the test system are rare, some studies conducted among of apparent efficacy problems. To do so, three historical epi- athletes suggest that the technocratic test system is met with sodes critical for the institutionalization and maintenance of distrust and frustration (Efverström, Bäckström, Ahmadi, & the technocratic test system are examined. Although the Hoff, 2016; Overbye, 2016). Furthermore, a number of stud- account covers only the period until the creation WADA in ies suggest that the extent of doping is significantly higher 1999, its insights on the strategies used for justifying and than that found in the official testing statistics (de Hon, Kuipers, & van Bottenburg, 2015; Dimeo & Taylor, 2013; Pitsch, Emrich, & Klein, 2005; Pitsch, Maats, & Emrich, 1University of Münster, Germany 2009; Striegel, Ulrich, & Simon, 2010). The working group on the “(in)effectiveness of testing” created by the World Corresponding Author: Henk E. Meier, Institute of Sports Science, University of Münster, Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) concluded that the system Horstmarer Landweg 62 b, 48149 Münster, Germany. was “not catching many cheats” and “that many are avoiding Email: [email protected] Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open maintaining technocratic antidoping policies might be valid carried out by individual and collective actors to create, for understanding current institutional persistence. maintain, and disrupt institutions” (Lawrence, Suddaby, & The present account argues that the institutionalization of Leca, 2011, p. 25). Hence, institutional work aims to gen- the technocratic test system has resulted from the deliberate erate deeper insights into institutional dynamics by empha- institutional work of interested actors. These actors, mostly sizing the role of deliberate agency. In contrast to interested professionals, developed and established a spe- DiMaggio’s (1988) concept of “institutional entrepre- cific technocratic field frame (Lounsbury, Ventresca, & neurs,” the institutional work approach tries to analyze Hirsch, 2003), which, following Henne (2009, 2013), can be institutional change without relying on an overwhelmingly described as “moral technopreneuralism,” that is, the belief dominant impact of institutions and on some actors as that doping represents a serious social problem, which can be powerful, heroic figures (Lawrence et al., 2011, p. 3). eradicated by creating a technology-based detection regime. Hence, the approach stresses the awareness, skill, and When the technocratic promise failed to materialize, actors reflexivity of individual and collective actors, understands interested in institutional maintenance engaged in creative institutions as constituted in the conscious actions of indi- efforts to refine and immunize the field frame. Thus, this vidual and collective actors, and interprets action as practice. account’s innovative contribution to doping research lies in Accordingly, agency is framed as “ongoing activity whereby tracing how technocratic antidoping policies have assumed actors reflect on and strategically operate within the institu- taken-for-granted character and in demonstrating the rele- tional context where they are embedded” (Lawrence et al., vance of institutional work. The strategies of institutional 2011, p. 55). Building on Emirbayer and Mische (1998), maintenance employed by different actors nurtured unrealis- institutional work emphasizes the presence of intentionality tic policy ambitions and planted the seeds for a further radi- even in habitual actions (Lawrence et al., 2009). Moreover, calization of “moral technopreneuralism.” Demonstrating as agency is perceived as distributed (Lawrence & Suddaby, how actors concealed, edited, and reframed evidence on effi- 2006, p. 217) institutional processes are fragile, unpredict- cacy problems might serve to inspire a more thorough reflec- able, and political in nature (Malsch & Gendron, 2013). By tion on antidoping policies. implication, distinct actors have to contribute to institutional The account represents a theory-driven historical analysis change (Lawrence et al., 2011, p. 55), and institutionalization of the antidoping policies of the International Olympic might not succeed without actors intervening strategically Committee (IOC). The analysis aims to make evident how (Battilana, Bernhard, & Boxenbaum, 2009). technocratic antidoping policies first emerged as a political For the purposes pursued here is relevant that the insti- construction endogenous to a field of actors and how unfa- tutional work approach has refocused research from vorable evidence on policy failures was edited and selec- accomplishments to activities and extends the research tively interpreted. agenda beyond institutional creation to the rest of the insti- tutional life cycle (Hwang & Colyvas, 2011). In particular, Institutional Work and Field Frames the shift away from the characterization of institutions as self-reproducing has inspired interest in processes of insti- Jedlicka and Hunt (2013) have made a strong claim that the tutional maintenance (Currie, Lockett, Finn, Martin, & technocratic antidoping system represents almost a textbook Waring, 2012; Lok & de Rond, 2013; Micelotta & example of an institutionalized practice, which is treated as Washington, 2013). unquestioned social fact (Barley & Tolbert, 1997; Zucker, Actors employ different forms of institutional work. 1987). Jedlicka and Hunt (2013) support this argument by According to the much-cited classification of Perkman and demonstrating how technocratic antidoping policies have Spicer (2008), three broad categories of institutional work diffused across international organizations addressing dop- can be distinguished. Political work is directed at influencing ing issues, which resulted in institutional isomorphism. The the development of rules and regulations to anchor an institu- current piece of research aims to go beyond characterizing tion within the wider social system. Technical work involves the technocratic antidoping system as a social fact and exam- designing frameworks that suggest, recommend, or prescribe ines how the technocratic antidoping