sign in sign up
<<
Home , Academy, Goliards, Medieval university, University of Paris

Elke Weik, of Leicester, [email protected]

The Birth of the University – An Emergent Institutionalist

Perspective

FIRST DRAFT – MARCH 2009

The present paper investigates processes of building. In contrast to most of what presently is discussed in this field, I want to establish and apply an emergent perspective, i.e. a perspective that views institution building as a long term process that is not dependent on the activities of individual actors.

As I will argue in the paper, the emergent perspective can be portrayed as the more intuitive, more modest but hopefully more realistic perspective on institution buidling. If we define with Giddens (1993) as entities with a large time-space extension, it is difficult to see how particular actors, who by definition can only cover a small time-space extension, can found institutions. The present discussion concerning institutional entrepreneurship obviously takes its clues from the founding of organizations, but in theoretical terms organizations are a very different case. My suspicion is that the managerialist of Management and

Organization Studies coupled with the strong individualist touch of UK and US national culture – where many authors originate from – leads the field to some notions that may not prove effective in the long run.

As a case study, I have chosen the foundation of the University of in the latter half of the

12th century. The not only was the most prestigious university in the

1 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

Middle Ages but also became the role model after which all later European were fashioned.

By choosing such a temporally distant foundation process, I also try to leave behind modern assumptions concering institutions and institution building and focus on the overall characteristics of the process. Modernity, as Zucker (1983) states, is characterised by an institutional self-dynamics with more and more institutions being established in more and more areas of life. This ubiquity of institutions, I believe, may sometimes prevent us from distinguishing institutional processes from other processes, for example organizational or entrepreneurial ones. In contrast, my focus on the – a time with a comparatively low degree of institutionalization – may draw the contours more clearly.

I will describe the foundation of the University of Paris as an analytical narrative focusing on the interplay of existing institutions as well as the relationship between culture and institutional . My sources are both primary and secondary. The is, of course, much more poorly documented than modern times. Still, with regard to my specific topic, we are lucky to have an autobiography of one of the key actors – Abelard’s

Historia Calamitatum – and about one million words of his philosophical writings. The autobiography, as all autobiographies, follows the rules of the genre and thus cannot be taken as a pure report of facts. However, as it was published in Abelard’s lifetime, we may assume that he could not diverge too much from the truth, and indeed modern have yet to find an outright lie in his account. Apart from Abelard’s writings in the original and a

German (Abaelard, 1987) and English translation (Abelard, 1972), I have used small extracts from other original sources, but have mostly relied on the works of established modern scholars of medieval history and . Thus, for university history I draw on Cobban

(1971), Koeppler (1939), Le Goff (1986), Müller (1996), Gabriel (1969) and Rüegg (1992) as

2 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected] well as on three classics of university history, Denifle (1885), Compayré (1893) and Rashdall

(1886; 1936), for scholastic philosophy on Clanchy (2000), Flasch (1987), Schmidinger

(1992) and Makdisi (1974), for Abelard on Clanchy (2000), Compayré (1893) and LeGoff

(1986).

THE FOUNDING OF THE UNIVERSITY: CULTURAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT

“A complete history of the universities of the Middle Ages would be in fact a history of medieval …”(Rashdall, 1936:3). The university as we know it today has its origins in the Middle Ages; it may, in fact, be its proudest cultural “invention”. While later universities were founded by decree (ex privilegio) and have thus a clearly marked beginning, the oldest universities grew slowly out of custom (ex consuetudine) – a much more intesting process from an institutionalist perspective. Among these, the universities of Paris and were considered the first, both with regard to age and importance. No exact date or founding document can be established for them, but they served as models for subsequent universities. I will limit my research to the University of Paris, whose magisterial and organization still lies at the basis of modern universities, and to the latter half of the 12th century, where this university emerged as a recognisable body.

Before we start with this particular time and place, however, I think it is necessary to dispel some cliches and prejudices that modernity has cultivated vis-à-vis the Middle Ages. The 11th and 12th centuries were a time of rupture and transformation. European population doubled between 1050 and 1200 leaving a huge number of people without subsistence and infrastructure (Herlihy, 1971; LeGoff, 1986). Traditional institutions did not just fade, they burst, creating insecurity and disillusion. Families could not provide for their children (except the firstborn), and the community had no place or work for them either. People started moving

3 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected] around, sometimes banding together for criminal purposes, but often as vagantes, a group that also formed an vociferous part of the students of the time. The contemporary vulgar songs and lyrics were full of irony and parody rejecting the and its magnates, the king, religious practices and Christian marriage. At the same time, the frustration was also vented against perceived outsiders. In 1007, the first heretics were burnt, and the first crusade started in 1096. Towards the end of this period, however, new forms begin to take shape:

Cities rose, and with them the new classes of merchants, bankers, craftsmen, artists, and university . were formed, and in the nobility the feudal system was further developed. In fact, many authors use the term “” to describe the remarkable cultural, and institutional achievements of the 12th century.

The Church, in whose lap the universities were to develop, was not unaffected by the turmoils. Its , the traditional places of learning, had been following the rule of St.

Benedict, but came under increasing critique for not being sincere and strict enough. The 11th century saw a serious crisis of the atrophied monasteries (Suso Frank, 1987). This dissatisfaction found two outlets. The first was for to leave the altogether and, following the example of the desert , to live as hermits in the forests. The second were the movements of Cluny and later Citeaux, which aimed at “restoring” the monastic ideal of austerity and .

The pre-university stage

The high mobility of the population was a boon for the newly established or growing cities.

However, if people did not want to settle and become citizens, but move on after a certain time, the lack of citizenship had serious consequences. Basically, these people had no rights and no means to act in a legally meaningful way. The problem was the same for merchants as

4 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected] for university teachers and students, and they responded with the same solution, viz. by forming an association or . This association was called “universitas” and referred to any trade, not just university people.

Paris and Bologna were the first places to have a “”, which meant they accepted students from everywhere and offered at least one of the higher faculties (i.e.

Theology, , ). Paris at the time offered in and , while Bologna focussed on Law and Salerno on Medicine. Students who graduated from these places had the – very important – right to teach anywhere else without further examination.

This ius ubique docendi was to become the most coveted privilege. It could only be granted by the as the Church was the only internationally recognised body to guarantee such a right.

The notions of universitas and studium generale did not merge fully until the 15th century. Till then, the studium generale was the location we would today identify as university, while universitas referred to the associations of masters and students respectively. The universitas magistrorum, i.e. the association of masters, was the more important in Paris and gave rise to the magisterial organization of universities, which later was to become the universal model.

Bologna, in contrast, had a student centred administrative organization in which students employed their masters and occupied the decision-making positions. In the 13th century, the universitas magistrorum branched into different facultates or scientiae (for theology, the arts, and medicine respectively), which then slowly grew together to form the university, at least in their dealings with externals. Internally, the faculties kept their own exclusive procedures for quite a while.

In the middle of the 12th century, the monasteries still taught as they always had, but mostly did so in the countryside. In the cities, had emerged for the same purpose.

5 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

At Paris, there were three: the cathedral schools of Notre-Dame, those of the cloister of Ste.

Geneviève and those of the cloister St. Victor. Ste. Geneviève was the home of the Artist

Faculty, Notre-Dame of mainstream theology, and St. Victor of mystical theology. (Note that

“home” does not refer to any building in particular as teaching went on whereever master and students agreed to meet.) All masters and students had clerical status and were under Church jurisdiction.

Scholastic migration to Paris began at the end of the 11th century with as the first Parisian master to attract students from abroad. The upsurge, however, that was to catapult Paris into being the intellectual centre of Europe and to make its new university the first among equals was triggered by his pupil , whom we will discuss shortly.

The emergence of the university

As mentioned before, there is no clear date nor of a foundational act regarding the

University of Paris. In the course of the 12th century, schools grew together, masters associated, and by the beginning of the 13th century, we can glimpse the first organizational structures and artifacts (see table 1). Certain characteristics, rights and practices of the university as an organization then became institutionalised patterns, not only for Paris, but wherever new universities were founded. In this way, Paris (together with Bologna) became the model university for all other European universities. Although we cannot be sure of the details surrounding the actual foundation, we can nevertheless trace interests and powers in the late 12th century to form an explanatory pattern, which is the purpose of the present section.

6 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

1150-70 Estimated founding of the University 1208 1st written statutes concerning dress, and funeral attendance 1213 loses right to grant teaching licence 1215 Fixed subjects for exams, minimum number of years for degree, fixed curriculum and textbooks 1219 Pope Honorius III takes masters and students under his protection 1220 University excommunicated in totum on conspiracy charges 1220 1st mention of university seal, faculties and 1229 Riots triggered by change in wine prices, university strike 1229-31 University closes 1231 “Parens scientiarum” (dubbed the “Magna Charta of the University of Paris” confirms existing rights and privileges and places university under papal jurisdiction; University reopens 1257 Foundation of the as 1st university 1291 Licentia ubique docendi formally granted

Table 1: Important dates in the founding of the University of Paris

Since the the Church had been the institutional carrier of learning and education. It is hence no surprise that the university also developed in its lap. Masters and students, as a rule, were clerics and thus under ecclesiastical jurisdiction. They were also exempt from military service and from paying taxes to the king. With the rise of the cities in the 11th and 12th century, city schools gained importance over monastic schools in the countryside. And with the elevation of Paris as the capital of a quickly expanding kingdom, the schools of Paris gained an advantage over other renowned schools, such as Laon or

Chartres. This led to a concentration of famous teachers at Paris, which in turn brought masses of students to the city. And it seems that this quantitative factor lies at the heart of the foundation of the university. Let us recall: massive population growth had shaken the foundations of European , students were often migrant, in fact rootless, and displayed a tendency for rioting and disrespect of authorities. These students entered Paris, found themselves a , studied for a while, and moved on. Triggered by the demand, schools and individual teaching mushroomed, each with its own syllabus, method and practices. In this situation the Church and the City of Paris as well as masters already teaching at Paris had

7 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected] a common interest, viz. to regulate and organise the quickly expanding chaos. The City fathers wanted a legal unity to address and hold responsible, the existing masters some regulations to stifle competition and co-opt new colleagues, the Bishop of Paris sought to retain control of the education. Thus, in 1150, all private schools were forced under his jurisdiction. In consequence, it seems that the foundation of the University of Paris started with a locally negotiated compromise between the city powers. The university, however, soon attracted the interest of other powers as well.

The kings of , the Capet dynasty, had followed an expansionist strategy since the beginning of the 12th century, when Paris became the capital of the kingdom. They privileged the cities to subdue the lower nobility, fought against the big feudal lords (most prominently the English king), and managed to create a nationalist feeling through the . Between

1180 and 1223, the crown lands quadrupled. In this expansion, the University of Paris was not just an economic factor but an ideological one as well. The saying went that while Italy had the Pope and Germany the Emperor, France had the University of Paris. The statement shows how a nationalist sentiment was combined with the growing regard for learning. The university provided the kings with an internationally recognised institution.

The , finally, are perhaps the most important single actors in this power game. As head of the Church, the Pope initially had the same interests as his local representative, the Bishop of Paris. In the course of events, however, the Pope became just as often an adversary of the

Bishop guarding the university and its members against the locally motivated demands of the

Bishop. The Pope’s interest in the university was threefold. First, he wanted a rationally based theological foundation to persecute heretics and to arbitrate in the developing disputes between the religious orders. Second, he sought to strengthen the papacy against regional interests. Third, he needed trained staff for his offices. The conditions for pursuing these

8 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected] interests were favourable as the papacy gained hegemony in Europe at the end of the 12th and beginning of the 13th century. Moreover, in the course of time, the popes themselves and many of their cardinals studied at Paris. Thus, for example, three later popes were pupils of

Abelard.

The Church as an institution was important in many respects, three of which I shall discuss here. First, as already mentioned, it was the traditional institution for learning and education.

It thus provided the necessary legitimacy to the new organization. Second, it was the major financing body. As masters were clerics, they were mostly paid from benefices1. The most important decision in that respect was to free them from the parochial obligations these benefices brought with them, thus enabling them to devote their time to study and teaching and move to different locations. Students would get a prebend to support them during their studies. In addition, Pope Alexander confirmed in 1179 that university teaching was free because learning was a gift from God and teaching a central task (officium) of clerics. This helped the students, and brought the masters even closer under Church control. Third, the

Church was the only supranational European power. Thus the Pope was the only person to be able to grant (and warrant) the licentia ubique docendi, the right to teach at every university in

Europe once a doctoral degree had been awarded. The licentia – and thus the right to grant it – was important because it signalled a high quality and enabled scholars to find employment all over Europe. It quickly became the privilege that distinguished universities from other schools and learned foundations.

In this power field, the emergent university, or more precisely the universitas magistrorum, did not command many power bases apart from forming coalitions with the people mentioned

1 Apart from this most common arrangement, masters could also be paid by students or by worldly powers. If they were paid in this way, however, they could incur the charge of simony because they asked money for a service that was stipulated to be free. 9 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected] above. The most important was the threat to quit the game, in other words, to go on strike or close down completely. This happened when the university closed between 1229 and 1231.

The masters and students moved away to Paris and even founded other universities in the process, for example Orléans and . The second power base was the growing social prestige attributed to the doctoral degree, which made it progressively easier for masters to hold their own against external authorities. As soon as it became clear that the degree promoted social mobility, students started to pursue it as an end in its own.

In the forming phase of the university, the struggles with the Chancellor of Paris were a major formative element. The Chancellor of Paris was employed by the Bishop of Paris in order to supervise and control the teaching in the city. He was, in consequence, not a member of the university but an external. In the beginning, he was the one to hold the jurisdiction over masters and students, grant the licentia to graduates, and to collect fines. During the first three decades of the 13th century, the masters challenged these rights and managed to have them conferred to the university itself. The pattern of these struggles is always the same. The

Chancellor, seeking to promote his own position, oversteps his competences, for example by asking masters to swear an oath of allegiance to himself in exchange for the licentia. The university then appeals to the Pope or the King, who arbitrate in favour of the university. The verdict normally comes as a written document (statutes or papal bull), some of which have come down on us. In this way, the university slowly acquires the right to self-administration and jurisdiction, to awarding degrees, to give itself statutes, to collect fines and fees, to carry a seal and to act as a legal entity.

10 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

THE FOUNDING OF THE UNIVERSITY FROM AN INSTITUTIONALIST

PERSPECTIVE

The model of Misangyi, Weaver and Elms

As a theoretical starting point, I want to base my paper on the model of instititutional change by Misangyi, Weaver and Elms (2008) (figure 1), who in turn base their model on insights from Giddens’s structuration theory and Bourdieu’s notion of capital. The model shows the recursive interplay of instutitonal logics, actors and resources. For Misangyi, Weaver and

Elms, institutional logics comprise a symbolic level providing identity and meaning, an intermediate level providing schemas, roles and rules, and a substantive level of practices and actions. Social actors, as specified by structuration theory, are enabled and constrained by an institutional . At the same time, their actions promote and reproduce the logic. In order to act, the actors need resources in the form of economic, cultural, symbolic and social capital.

The value of the particular capital is, in turn, defined by the logic. In the case of institutional change, new social actors with different interests promote and draw on a different or new logic and on different(ly valued) resources. The ensuing conflict is inherently political. Its outcome depends on the ability of the attackers and defenders to mobilise support and resources for their stance and on the plausibility and consistency of the new logic.

11 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

Figure 1: The Model of Misangyi, Weaver and Elms (2008:756)

In the subsequent sections, I will address in turn the institutional logics, the major social actors (Abelard and the universitas magistrorum), and the shift in culture that eventually brought about the University of Paris.

Institutional Logics of Medieval Education

In the case of the , we may identify different logics applying to the field of culture and education.The first and older one, which I will call “hermetic logic”, views knowledge as a treasure, as something precious to be guarded, handled with care by a few select people and kept away from the crowds. The beautifully illuminated manuscripts, uniques whose production took a lifetime, belong to this logic. It is the logic of the monasteries, developed in the Dark Ages, when the monks clung to the few remnants of antique civilisation while around them the world fell apart. It is about repetition, about

12 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected] devoting oneself to the copying of a text as a form of prayer instead of copying it quickly and efficiently. It is, in consequence, about texts being worth this effort, about holy texts or texts far advanced in knowledge. It is a religion of , not just religious books. It is about a where few could read and few wanted to read for themselves, where the lectio, i.e. the reading from a paired with an authoritative , was the sole method of teaching. It is also about technology, about books being made from animal skins and written in a script that, because of all its arabesques, is difficult to decipher. In addition, as space is precious, no spaces are left between single words.

In contrast, there is the new “public logic” of knowledge and teaching. This logic views knowledge as something to be accumulated and truth as something yet to be found – by a concerted effort of all human beings capable and willing. The maxim of William of

Champeaux at the beginning of the 12th century is: “Knowledge when distributed increases”.

This logic views reason as peer to the and the when it comes to understanding God and the world. It accepts the contradictions and shortcomings in explanation and elevates doubt to a methodological core element. It celebrates the disputatio instead of the lectio. It asks people – everybody - to read and think for themselves and, above all, to discuss matters publicly. At Paris, the episcopal and monastic schools open their doors to the public and enrol “external students”. This logic views books as tools that should be available for everyone, and fortunately, technology follows suit. Paper, much cheaper and easier to use, is introduced to Europe during this time, and the copying trade flourishes in university cities. Writers exchange reeds for quills, the simpler gothic minuskel for the karolinigian (see figure 2), they leave spaces between words and add alphabetical listings and tables of content to their works. Handbooks, in the proper sense of the word, are invented.

13 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

While it seems quite plausible that universities “needed” the public logic in order to emerge, some institutionalist scholars (Lawrence & Phillips, 2004; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008) point out correctly that the existence of two logics may be a necessary precondition for institutional change but is in itself not an explanation. In order to explain the switch from one logic to the other, we need to look at institutional agents.

Figure 2: Karolingian and Gothic Minuscle

14 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

Abelard

“Peter Abelard (1079-1142) was the preeminent of the twelfth century and

perhaps the greatest logician of the middle ages. […] In all areas Abelard was brilliant,

innovative, and controversial. He was a genius. He knew it, and made no apologies. His

vast knowledge, wit, charm, and even arrogance drew a generation of Europe's finest

to Paris to learn from him.” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy 15-01-09

Judging from his own account, the adoration of his followers and the hatred of his enemies, but also from the retrospective judgment of modern scholars, Abelard seems to be the person who brought about this change in logics.

As a person he must have been quite remarkable. In a time when it was taken for granted that the firstborn follows the occupational footsteps of the father, he, although the eldest son of a knight, decided against a military career to pursue his studies of philosophy. In a time when the individual was more a theoretical construct than a social reality, he wrote an autobiography. In a time when the Church was based on absolute spiritual and worldly power for its magnates and authorities, the young student cleric criticised and challenged his masters publicly – and successfully. His intellectual brilliance was undisputed even among his adversaries. He drew the crowds to Paris or whereever he happened to teach by his reputation in learning and the new methods he used, but also by his eloquence and quick wit. He never shunned an intellectual dispute, no matter what the consequences for his personal well-being and security were. In sum, he seems to have had the necessary individual abilities to perform his role as institutional entrepreneur.

15 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

Agency, however, is not just about individual skills, and thus it is necessary to take a look at

Abelard’s social ties and power base in order to get an idea of the resources he could mobilise. He started his student life as a member of the . The Goliards were wandering students and clerics renowned for their songs and celebrating drinking and debauchery, but even more for their rioting and gambling. Their whole raison d’être seems to have been a permanent attack on the establishment, although we cannot be sure how much of this was of a political as opposed to a purely literary . Probably this was the audience that the young Abelard took to disputes with his masters. While he could thus score on the informal side of education, his masters retaliated unfailingly on the formal side and he was excluded from further study or teaching.

Having been forced to leave Paris on the first of these occasions, in a dispute with his philosophy teacher William of Champeaux, Abelard founded his own at Melun (taking with him a considerable number of his former master’s students). When he finally returned to

Paris, he settled right next to his former master and kept challenging him until William finally gave up teaching, probably not only because he was defeated philosophically, but because all his students had defected to Abelard.

The second battle, with his theology teacher , is a mirror to the first.

According to Abelard’s own account, it is his fellow students who urge him to challenge

Anselm by commenting on a difficult passage in the Bible. Abelard accepts the challenge, delivers a first successful for a few students, then student numbers increase in the following ones. Anselm reacts predictably. In Abelard’s words:

“Yonder venerable coward had the impudence to forbid me to carry on any further in his

school the work of preparing glosses which I had thus begun. The pretext he alleged was

that if by chance in the course of this work I should write anything containing blunders - as

was likely enough in view of my lack of training - the thing might be imputed to him.

16 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

When this came to the ears of his scholars, they were filled with indignation at so

undisguised a manifestation of spite, the like of which had never been directed against any

one before. The more obvious this rancour became, the more it redounded to my honour,

and his persecution did nought save to make me more famous” (Abelard, 1972).

When Abelard returned to Paris this time, he did so not as a famous , but as a modern- day celebrity:

“Which king or philosopher can best your glory? Which kingdom, which city or village

does not want to see you? Who would not run and queue to catch a glimpse of you in

public? Which married woman, which young girl would not pine for you in your absence

and fall for you in your presence?” (Heloise, quoted in Clanchy, 2000:15, my translation)

While many of his professorial colleagues did not like his and style, success made him quite invulnerable. By drawing crowds of students – Compayré (1893) estimates 5000 -,

Abelard himself became financially independent, but it seems that the wordly and ecclesiastical powers also appreciated what these crowds did to their budget and reputation.

Intellectually, there was no one in sight to challenge him either.

This blissful state came to a sudden end with the scandal about Heloise and Abelard’s castration. The fateful consequence of this was less that Abelard left Paris and retired into a monastery – he would return eventually, both to Paris and to teaching. But following an inner catharsis, Abelard decided to write theological treatises.

Now, at the time, writing a new book – whatever its content – was a clear signal that someone adhered to the new logic. 50 years before, Anselm of Canterbury still had to apologise for

17 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected] writing a new book when everything important was already laid down in the Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers (Flasch, 1987). Even worse:

“…I devoted myself to analysing the basis of our faith through illustrations based on

human understanding, and I wrote for my students a certain tract on the unity and of

God. This I did because they were always seeking for rational and philosophical

explanations, asking rather for reasons they could understand than for mere words, saying

that it was futile to utter words which the could not possibly follow, that nothing

could be believed unless it could first be understood, and that it was absurd for any one to

preach to others a thing which neither he himself nor those whom he sought to teach could

comprehend.” (Abelard, 1972).

The books provided his enemies with a crystallization point, a document to be taken to a synod, to be sent to the Pope. As in all similar cases in the Middle Ages, the Church is far more concerned about written documents containing heresy than about oral teaching

(Courtenay, 1989). Moreover, the conflict is no longer about jokes and ribald songs nor about the scholastic method and disputationes, but about one of the core beliefs of the Catholic

Church: the nature of the Trinity. He is accused of heresy.

In this sphere of the Church, Abelard had not many friends and, worse, a man against him that was the most powerful cleric of the time: Bernhard of Clairvaux. Bernhard was a reformer too, but a reformer who wanted to purify the Church and restore the old monastic ideals. He presided over the European-wide spread of his order, the . He was the right hand of the Pope. He was a devoted mystic and enraged by the thought that the most divine issues should be “discussed on street corners”. He disliked the cities and he disliked intellectual disputes. His stragegy for dealing with Jews, pagans and heretics was crusade,

18 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected] and death. While Abelard was lucky to escape physical harm, his books were subsequently condemned and burnt by two synods.

The monastery he withdrew to was not exactly Abelard’s home turf either. The monks did not want fame and they did not want intellectual dispute.They absolutely detested the groups of students hanging around waiting for their idol. And most of all, they detested Abelard telling them that they were stupid, uncivilised and uncouth. Eventually, Abelard was granted permission to leave the monastery. The pattern of his final years was erratic (at least given our sources) with one constant source of persecution – Bernhard -, one constant source of support

– his students -, but various and changing magnates with enough power to protect Abelard from Bernhard.

In sum, we can see how the logic championed by Abelard was anchored in the students and their anti-establishement feelings. To them, “new” was a positive and promising word. To them, reason was about the only possession they had. The man Abelard then brought his personal qualities, above all his intellectual brilliance and boundless self-confidence, to take the fight to the schools, to challenge and best the old order. The more powerful he became as an individual, the more his thoughts mattered, and when his fortunes reversed, his opponents struck. However, although they destroyed the man, the logics he stood for were too widely disseminated to fade away with him.

The Entrepreneur Who Wasn’t

Despite of all this, however, I think the concept of institutional entrepreneur should not be applied to Abelard for two reasons. First, he did not found or establish an institution in his lifetime. Although he promoted and the public logic, the founding of the

19 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

University of Paris was still a generation away when he died. Abelard taught as an individual master, he challenged and was challenged as an individual philosopher, and the glory and scandal that followed his actions were attributed to him individually. Second, perhaps even more importantly, Abelard did not foresee the university nor did he act in any strategically meaningful way towards its foundation. He was, in sum, an important social actor with regard to the foundation of universities, but he was not an institutional entrepreneur in the sense discussed by most current scholars (Beckert, 1999; Lawrence & Phillips, 2004; Misangyi et al., 2008; Thornton, 1999; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008; Zilber, 2008).

The distinction may furthermore point to a difference in the foundation of new institutions in modern and pre-modern times. In order to act strategically, the entrepreneur needs a vision or substantiated idea of how the new institution might look. With less institutions around, new institutions were probably more difficult to fathom, thus increasing the proportion of gradually evolving institutions as opposed to institutions founded by agents.

This said, however, I should also like to contest the actor-centric narrative on institutional entrepreneurship (see Hardy & Maguire, 2008 for this distinction; and Scott, 2008 for a similar one) for theoretical reasons and independently of the historical epoch in question. As I pointed out at the beginning of the paper, the idea of institution as a set of patterned practices with a large time-space extension does not, in itself, sit easily with the notion of individual or collective actors’ sets of particular actions that are singular in time and space. Although a particular action may be the instantiation of a practice, and even although a practice, in some cases, may have an identifiable “inventor”, the relationship between practice and individual action is a type-token relationship, or in other words, a relationship of a universal and a particular. The logical difference, as far as I can see, has not been taken into account by the actor-centred literature, and for that reason not been solved or bridged in any way. Hence,

20 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected] while I agree that actors can set favourable conditions for the founding of an institution by mobilizing resources, constructing rationales, and forging new inter-actor relations (Hardy &

Maguire, 2008), I ’t see how they can actually found a practice and, in consequence, an institution. This entrepreneurial, managerialist perspective has its place when it comes to founding organizations, but cannot, I believe, be transferred to institutionalist theory.

The second, process-centric narrative views institutional entrepreneurship as an emergent outcome of diverse activities by many actors. Lounsbury and Crumley (2007) draw on practice theory and the notion of performativity (Feldman, 2003) to explain how new practices can emerge and how, in their wake, new practice fields become established (see figure 3). They claim that actors, whether they act strategically or just adapt to local contingencies, vary the individual actions. Part of this variation is considered appropriate, while some variations are considered anomalous and trigger an evaluation and negotiation process that can eventually lead either to a revision of the extant practice field or the creation of a new one. With regard to institutional entrepreneurship, while we can certainly see that social actors are involved in all processes represented in the model, and while we may assume that some actors are powerful enough to influence these processes according to their interests, this much more dispersed view of actorhood, does, in my eyes, not qualify for institutional entrepreneurship as depicted by most scholars - unless we want to create a extremely wide and ultimately meaningless notion of entrepreneurship. A further advantage of the model of

Lounsbury and Crumley is that counter-narratives, struggles and possible failures can also be included quite easily, thus providing a less straightforward, less functional but probably more realistic description of the emergence of institutions.

21 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

Figure 3: The Model of Lounsbury and Crumley (2007:1004)

Mind the gap: The role of the professions

A second major actor in the foundation of the university was the universitas magistrorum, i.e. the association of teachers of . Although it lacks a number of characteristics of modern professions, we might regard the it as a professional body of the 12th century. Like all professions at the time, it was organised as a guild.

After Abelard’s death, it seems to have been the collective identity as “scholastics” that integrated the hitherto quite loosely and informally structured association. And it were those scholastics that carried Abelard’s ideas on and across the gap of about a generation that we today perceive as lying between him and the founding of the University of Paris. They were, and wanted to be, the “modernii”, the people who believed in the power of reason, in dispute, and in people reading for themselves. With their activity, they established and promoted other professions as well: copyists, booksellers, but also language teachers, lawyers and dance masters.

22 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

On a political level, as we have seen, they recognised the need to break free from the

Church’s supervision and keep interference from the outside to a minimum. For that reason, they sought backing against the local ecclesiastical power, i.e. the Bishop of Paris and his chancellor, from powers that were, in a sense, further away: the Pope regionally, the King of

France ideologically. And they played their cards united. The strike and closing of the university, after all, affected approximately 150 masters and 2-3000 students (Ferruolo, 1988), all of whom seemed to have moved to other places. This is, among other things, politically and logistically a remarkable feat.

The shape the new organization takes is also clearly formed by professional considerations.

The first statutes that have come down on us specify what kind of dress a master should wear, which masters take precedence in the timetabling of the lectures, and who is to attend whose funeral. About the same time, one of the major conflicts with the Chancellor concerns the granting of the teaching licence to new doctors. The original rule was that the Chancellor, in lieu of the Bishop, decided who of the new doctors was granted the licence. On the other hand, the universitas magistrorum had developed an inception ritual to mark the entrance of new members to their association: New members had to deliver a lecture, received a hat in recognition of their freedom from pupillage2, and had to invite all other masters to a large banquet. While both rules were in place, the Chancellor would block and fine everybody teaching without a licence and the universitas magistrorum would boycott anyone teaching without inception. In the ensuing standoff, the masters won, and were gradually given the sole right to grant the licence. Other organizational measures like fixing syllabuses and curricula, or specifying how long a student had to study before he could obtain a degree, seem also motivated by concerns of the profession to assure certain standards.

23 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

In the further development of the university, we can perceive how professional concerns progressively undermine the institutional logic. For example, disputes become more formalised and predictable, masters move up in the world and become bishops, arch and councillors. As early as 1206, Philippus de Grevia complains:

“At one time, when each magister taught independently and when the name of the university was unknown, there were more lectures and and more interest in scholarly things.

Now, however, when you have joined yourselves together in a university, lectures and disputations have become less frequent; everthing is done hastily, little is learnt, and the time needed for study is wasted in meetings…” (Rüegg, 1992:15)

12th Century culture and the scholastic method

In order to discuss the final major element, let us, return to Abelard once more to take a closer look at how institutional logics and culture interact.

Abelard’s major cultural capital was his excellence as a logician. Logic, in the 12th century, was taught according to the scholastic method. This method started as a method of teaching, but then became a whole way of thinking and doing philosophy as its schemas were carried into new disciplinary domains (a process described by DiMaggio, 1997). The method is essentially dialectical presenting two opposing proposals in order to enter into a dispute about them. Abelard’s most famous treatise, which is lucidly titled “Sic et Non” (Yes and No), was the first scholarly document in the Occident to apply the method rigorously throughout a whole text. In terms of content, it is easy to see the rationalist undercurrent of the method and its zeal for dispute and doubt. In sociological terms, the method quickly became the standard

2 Rashdall (1886) traces this custom back to the manumission in Roman times, where the freedman received a 24 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected] teaching method of the cathedral schools, while the monastic schools still clung to the older method of lectio. For the next century, “dialectical” was synonymous to “scholastic” and to

“modern” (modernus). All three terms were not necessarily positive; traditionalists used them unfailingly in a pejorative sense. The terms, however, provided the new masters and students of the cathedral schools with a collective identity that was to play an important role in the founding of the new university.

Abelard’s second major achievement was to apply the scholastic method, which hitherto had been restricted to logic and philosophy, to theology. “Sic et Non” juxtaposes answers of the

Church authorities thus showing that there is no consistent “system” of , and concluding that in such a situation reason must decide which answer is the best. In this sense, Abelard is the founder of scholastic theology – indeed, of the word “theology” itself -, which was to dominate the Middle Ages. In his time, however, this method of doing theology was far from undisputed. As we have seen, there was a strong traditionalist, mostly hermetic and mystic movement that wanted the most divine to be left in peace and not be subjected to human inquiry. As Bernhard of Clairvaux rants against Abelard:

„The simple faith is ridiculed, God’s secrets are torn out and spilled, the most divine issues are questioned without any consideration.” (Clanchy, 2000:23, my translation)

The underlying the scholastic method is mirrored in developments in other societal fields. Thus, for example, the law of the 12th century abandons the trial by ordeal in favour of more human-based ways of judging. While Bernhard preaches the crusade, his opponent Petrus Venerabilis, of Cluny, has the Koran translated to open a dialogue with

Islam. Abelard’s moral treatises argue that sin does not lie in desire, which is a natural force,

special cap to mark his new status. 25 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected] but in consenting to the desire, which is a rational act. This implies that a pagan clinging to his belief because he does not know better does not sin and should not be punished. On broad canvas, it might be argued that the “renaissance” of the 12th century, like its successor in the

15th, abandoned a number of archaic-magical beliefs and opted for a more humanist and rationalist model of society and education.

The scepticism of the method appealed to all those who were disillusioned by existing institutions and their claims to truth and legitimacy. At a different time, it might have been looked upon with suspicion, but as we have seen, the preceding 150 years had seen a lot of doubt and disillusionment in very practical, everyday terms. The scholastic method provided students with a legitimate, recognised method of “theorising” their feelings and experiences

(for the importance of theorising in practice diffusion see Zilber, 2008).

Finally, if we accept that cultural systems construe actors as authorised agents (Meyer &

Jepperson, 2000), we can see how the scholastic method shifts the field of legitimate power in education towards a more egalitarian structure. As it argues that reason and enquiry is the way to truth, and as this way is open to everybody, power moves away from those people that were hitherto thought to have sole access to the of the Church Fathers and the Bible. This more egalitarian structure, although far from being perfectly egalitarian, leads to important changes concerning the core and the periphery of the field.

26 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

AN EMERGENT THEORY OF INSTITUTIONS

In conclusion, despite Abelard’s towering presence over the foundation of the university, I want to propose an emergent perspective that stands in contrast to the mainstream actor-based perspective on institutional creation.

The perspective comprises three analytical dimensions: a structural dimension focusing on the stable factors in the new institution’s environment, a power dimension focusing on the social actors and their resources, and a diachronic dimension focusing on the change in time of the two previous dimensions.

Structural dimension

As I argued above, an individual actor does not have the “space-time extension” needed to accompany the creation of an institution. We must, hence, look for entities that can provide such a space-time extension. The most common are: existing institutions, professional bodies, and cultural elements. Existing institutions have certain interests and certain forms of capital

(in Bourdieu’s sense of the term) to pursue these interests. The same goes for professional bodies. Both also draw on a sensemaking framework – institutional logics in the former, professional identity in the latter case. Cultural elements might be values, shared meanings or discourses, depending on the researcher’s theoretical perspective. As DiMaggio (1997:273f.) suggests, culture works through the interaction of three forms: information distributed across persons, shared mental structures (schemata), and shared symbol systems. All three entities – existing institutions, professional bodies and cultural elements - support certain sets of practices, albeit not necessarily the same. I would argue that they make up the basic structure of the “field” in which the new institution is to emerge. This structure is, of course, not static

27 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected] as the three entities harbour internal contradictions and conflicts. However, they are comparatively stable in relation to the emerging institution. The ephemeral part of the field may be captured by the term “situation”. Thus, at every point in time, chance can intervene in an unpredictable – and, within the frame, inexplicable – way. The situation is a necessary element of the model because it prevents us from constructing a general, determinist theory of change in the tradition of structuralism, matierialism or evolutionism (Giddens, 1993). We thus must allow for external factors to “disturb” the field temporarily and/or to tip the scales towards an outcome that would otherwise not have occured.

The arrows in the figure depict the mutual influence of the three entities on the emergent institution and vice versa. Over time, the strength of the influence in one direction may vary, and we can assume that the influence of the emergent institution grows the longer it exists.

For a detailed account of what this influencing looks like, we can draw on the analysis of change by Clemens and Cook (1999). They define schemas and resources as sources of change and propose several types of schema and/or resource diffusion and modification. For the purposes of the present model, I should like to focus on the following features: resource competition, resource definition, schema competition, schema diffusion or translation, and schema reinterpretation. I thus assume that existing institutions and professional bodies interact with the emergent institution by competing for existing resources, by defining new or devaluing existing resources (see next section), by offering competing schemata to the actors, by imposing their schemata on each other, and/or by reinterpreting and thus modifying each others’ schemata.

28 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

Power dimension

Having specified the elements of the field, I now want to elaborate the notion of the field itself. I will draw on Bourdieu (1984; 1990; 1992; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1996) in order to do this. Similar to Hardy and Maguire’s (2008) notion of institutional context, Bourdieu’s conceptualisation of the field directs our attention towards the relational qualities of a process or situation. In a field, actors are linked to one another through asymmetrical power relations.

Unequal capital distribution as well as shared social distinctions create a topography of the field in which each actor occupies his or her unique position. The position determines the opportunities and constraints each actor faces, the expectations he or she has to meet as well as the social categories he or she can draw on. As each actor is related to a number of other actors, counter-perspectives and counter-logics play a quite important role. The symbolic and material resources - Bourdieu’s “capital” - are also linked to the actor’s position in the field.

While each type of capital may be accummulated and thus increase in quantity, the value of each type is, again, linked to the other types to create a sort of “exchange rate”. In this way, actors may accummulate a certain type of capital but still become poorer overall as this type loses value in comparison with other types. Vice versa, previously less well endowed actors may suddenly find their fortunes reversed by such a change in the exchange rate. One important implication of this theory is, however, that institutional change cannot be brought about from the periphery of the field as actors there do not have the capital to make change happen. Rather, we might assume that actors that used to live at the periphery, for whatever reasons, find themselves suddenly at the disposal of valuable capital and move, temporarily or permanently, to the centre of the field. Thus Abelard, in the present case study, got propelled to the centre by his leading position in the Goliard movement – social capital – and his skills in winning philosophical and theological debates – cultural capital. Both forms of capital had only recently been recognised as valuable, which explains why Abelard could act the moment

29 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected] he did although he was not part of the establishment. With regard to the emergent perspective, it also emphasises the fact that, important though Abelard was, his success can only be understood properly in terms of the field he was moving in.

The struggles surrounding the “value” or “exchange rate” of any sort of capital manifest themselves usually as struggles over meaning and interpretation (Zilber, 2002). Thus, in our case study, the struggle over whether truth lay in past writings of the Church Fathers or in propositions yet to be discovered can be viewed as a struggle over the value of a traditional education as compared to the value of individual intellectual-logical powers. Both are forms of cultural capital, but distributed differently over the field. Hence, a shift from the former to the latter can – and did - cause significant changes in the power distribution. If the latter then is institutionalised, as it was in the case of European universities, new social differences in the sense of Lamont and Molnár (2002) become established, such as the teacher vs the researcher, or the vs the lay person.

The new institution shapes and is shaped by local practices and local identities, and both shape and are shaped by the amount and value of different forms of capital.

The three structural elements introduced previously – existing institutions, professions and cultural elements – prepare the field for the emergence of the new institution (or, in negative cases, prevent the emergence). They can influence the process of emergence as well as the shape of the emerging institution by influencing the resource distribution, actors’ identities, practices or the new logic itself. It should be noted, however, that they in turn are bound to be reshaped by the emergence – that is the idea of relationality.

30 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

Diachronic dimension

As stated before, the structural and the power dimension need to be complemented by a diachronic dimension in order to do justice to the processual nature of the pheonomenon.

Although this solution hardly does justice to process as a permanently changing phenomenon,

I propose an analysis at three points in time: 1. with regard to the status quo ante, 2. when the local settlement(s) are established, 3. when the emerging institution becomes visible.

Depending on the particular case to be studied it may, of course, make sense to introduce even more points.

The notion of the settlement is taken from Rao and Kenney’s (2008) study on the emergence of new organizational forms. They argue that new forms must be constructed as settlements before they can be institutionalised because the routines that eventually lead to the institutionalised form can only operate when a “truce” concerning the frame to be established is reached. In the case of the University of Paris, this was the local settlement reached between the city council, the Bishop of Paris and the universitas magistrorum.

Conclusion

The emergent perspective as proposed in this paper can, I believe, contribute to a number of current discussions in institutionalist theory.

It describes institutions as emerging out of ongoing, normal and everyday processes.

Institutions may emerge or they may not, and there is no a priori characteristic in the process that can determine which way the process takes. In this sense, the perspective can always only be applied in retrospect.

31 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

Fligstein (2001) has proposed that institution building occurs when groups confront each other over contentious sets of interaction. DiMaggio (1988) and Fligstein (2001) hold that institution building takes place because powerful actors want to stabilise their position . The emergent perspective with its emphasis on ongoing processes shows that these notions are rather trivial characterisations of the process because that is what happens all the time anyway. There is, in effect, no special process of institutional emergence. Rather, it is everyday processes that, in retrospect, go through a number of stages necessary for institution building, for example a change in logics or the reaching of a settlement. Still, at any stage, the process might not be carried further, and an institution will not emerge. In this way, the perspective proposes a more modest stance on institution building and a critical re-evaluation of current actor-based perspective.

This critical re-evaluation, as I have shown, should question the existing notions of institutional entrepreneurship as a strategic endeavour of certain actors at certain points in time. As I have argued, I do not think that this managerialist reading of the process provides a realistic picture of what is going on. It also creates false paradoxes, like that of the embedded agent who is too embedded to envision new solutions or too much at the periphery of the field to act in a decisive manner (Hardy & Maguire, 2008; Seo & , 2002). As I have tried to show, actors may well move from the periphery to the core (and back) quite quickly and independently of their previous relation with the establishment. More importantly, however, a process perspective with counter-narratives, conflicting logics and negotiations never assumes in the first place that actors are embedded in just one field nor that the field is monolithical with regard to cultural tools, ideas or visions.

In the same modest vein, the proposed perspective addresses the popular question when and why actors switch from reproducing a certain logic or practice to changing it: They don’t.

Individual actors are not capable of reproducing or changing a logic or a practice. What they do – every day, every minute – is adapting universal principles to local contingencies – tokens

32 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected] constructed from types -, and this activity contains both the potential for change or reproduction. Which of the two is actually chosen, depends on supra-individual patterns and, again, can only be determined in retrospect.

33 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

References

Abaelard, P. 1987. Die Leidensgeschichte und der Briefwechsel mit Heloisa. München: dtv. Abelard, P. 1972. Historia Calamitatum. The Story of My Misfortunes http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/abelard-histcal.html. Beckert, J. 1999. Agency, Entrepreneurs, and Institutional Change. Organization Studies, 20(5): 777-799. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction. (Mass.): Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. 1992. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. 1996. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Clanchy, M. 2000. Abaelard. Ein mittelalterliches Leben. Darmstadt: Primus Verlag. Clemens, E., & Cook, J. 1999. Politics and Institutionalism: Explaining Durability and Change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25: 441-466. Cobban, A. 1971. Medieval Student Power. Past and Present, 53: 28-66. Compayré, G. 1893. Abelard and the Origin and Early History of Universities. London: Heinemann. Courtenay, W. 1989. Inquiry and Inquisition: in Medieval Universities. Church History, 58(2): 168-181. Denifle, H. 1885. Die Universitäten des Mittelalters bis 1400. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. DiMaggio, P. 1988. Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory. In L. Zucker (Ed.), Instititutional Patterns and Organizations: 3-21. Cambridge (Mass.): Ballinger Publishing Company. DiMaggio, P. 1997. Culture and Cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23: 263-287. Feldman, M. 2003. A Performative Perspective on Stability and Change in Organizational Routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12: 727-752. Ferruolo, S. 1988. "Quid dant artes nisi luctum?": Learning, Ambition, and Careers in the Medieval University. Quarterly, 28(1): 1-22. Flasch, K. 1987. Einführung in die Philosophie des Mittelalters. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Fligstein, N. 2001. Social Skill and the Theory of Fields. Sociological Theory, 19(2): 105- 125. Gabriel, A. 1969. Garlandia. Frankfurt/Main: Josef Knecht. Giddens, A. 1993. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. 2008. Institutional Entrepreneurship. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 198-217. Los Angeles: Sage. Herlihy, D. 1971. Alienation in Medieval Culture and Society. In F. Johnson (Ed.), Alienation: Concept, Term, and Meanings: 125-140. : Seminar Press. Koeppler, H. 1939. Frederick Barbarossa and the Schools of Bologna. The English Historical Review, 54(216): 577-607. Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. 2002. The Study of Boundaries in theSocial . Annual Review of Sociology, 28: 167-195.

34 Elke Weik, University of Leicester, [email protected]

Lawrence, T., & Phillips, N. 2004. From 'Moby Dick' to 'Free Willy': Macro-Cultural Discourse and Institutional Entrepreneurship in Emerging Institutional Fields. Organization, 11(5): 689-711. LeGoff, J. 1986. Die Intellektuellen im Mittelalter. Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. 2007. New Practice Creation: An Institutional Perspective on Innovation. Organization Studies, 28(7): 993-1012. Makdisi, G. 1974. The Scholastic Method in Medieval Education. Speculum, 49(4): 640-661. Meyer, J., & Jepperson, R. 2000. The 'Actors' of Modern Society: The Cultural Construction of Social Agency. Sociological Theory, 18(1): 100-120. Misangyi, V., Weaver, G., & Elms, H. 2008. Ending Corruption: The Interplay among Institutional Logics, Resources, and Institutional Entrepreneurs. of Management Review, 33(3): 750-770. Müller, R. 1996. Geschichte der Universität. Hamburg: Nikol. Rao, H., & Kenney, M. 2008. New Forms as Settlements. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 352-370. Los Angeles: Sage. Rashdall, H. 1886. The Origines of the University of Paris. The English Historical Review(October): 639-676. Rashdall, H. 1936. The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rüegg, Walter. 1992. A History of the University in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmidinger, H. M. 1992. Scholastik. In J. Ritter, & K. Gründer (Eds.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, Vol. 8: 1332-1342. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Scott, R. 2008. Lords of the Dance: Professionals as Institutional Agents. Organization Studies, 29(2): 219-238. Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. 2002. Institutional Contradictions, Praxis, and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 222-247. Suso Frank, K. 1987. Geschichte des christlichen Mönchtums. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Thornton, P. 1999. The Sociology of Entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 25: 19- 46. Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. 2008. Institutional Logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 99-129. Los Angeles: Sage. Zilber, T. 2002. Institutionalization as an Interplay Between Actions, Meanings, and Actors: The Case of a Rape Crisis Center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 234-254. Zilber, T. 2008. The Work of Meanings in Institutional Processes and Thinking. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 151-169. Los Angeles: Sage. Zucker, L. 1983. Organizations as Institutions. In S. B. e. a. Bacharach (Ed.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 2: 1-47. Greenwich: JAI Press.

35