9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 519
21 New Sociology of Knowledge: Historical Legacy and Contributions to Current Debates in Institutional Research
Renate E. Meyer
INTRODUCTION sociology of knowledge has become one of the classics in sociological thinking. In When laying the foundations for neoinstitu- neoinstitutional theory, it is still among the tional theory in 1977, both of the subsequent most frequently quoted references and gener- classic articles (Meyer/Rowan 1977; Zucker ally assumed to be one of the approach’s 1977) pointed to Peter L. Berger and Thomas main theoretical pillars. As with many Luckmann’s Social Construction of Reality, classics, however, the current citation is often first published in 1966, as a central theoreti- made in passing and is more frequently a cal foundation and inspiration for their tribute paid to their overall contribution to research program. In the equally influential the field than as guidance in concrete theoret- ‘orange book,’ DiMaggio and Powell (1991) ical, conceptual or methodological questions. underline that Berger and Luckmann’s Four decades after its first publication, the phenomenological approach, together with actual impact of the sociology of knowledge Harold Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology seems to be lagging behind its omnipresence (another American scholar strongly influ- in the bibliographies of institutional enced by Alfred Schütz; see also Psathas analyses. 2004), provides ‘the new institutionalism The Social Construction of Reality was with a microsociology of considerable originally published in the United States, but power.’ Berger and Luckmann’s biographical back- Today, beyond doubt, Berger and grounds1 and their ambition to reconcile Max Luckmann’s ‘new’ or social constructionist Weber’s verstehende sociology, Schütz’ 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 520
520 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM
phenomenological analysis of the Lebenswelt otherwise heterogeneous research agenda of and American pragmatism give their socio- the German sociology of knowledge. In addi- phenomenologically oriented approach pro- tion, organizational institutionalism’s often found academic roots on both sides of the quantitative research questions and designs are Atlantic and make it, as Dirk Tänzler puts it, not easily compatible with a hermeneutic the ‘heiress and sister of philosophy.’ Despite approach. And last but not least, the language their prominent position among sociological divide Ð the German-speaking branches of the classics, Berger and Luckmann have not sociology of knowledge are unfortunately given rise to a specific school of thinking nor available mostly in only the German language Ð has it been their intention to do so. Apart from prevents the proponents of both approaches neoinstitutional theory, which was elaborated from entering into a proper dialogue. mainly in Northern America, in German-speak- In this chapter, I hope to make a contribution ing interpretive sociology, a particular field of to such a dialogue by bringing together the lit- study has developed in this tradition especially erature from both currently disparate streams. after Luckmann’s return. Similar to organiza- The theoretical inspiration that the sociology tional institutionalism, this field is more a of knowledge has provided is still alive in research community that shares basic assump- many of organizational institutionalism’s basic tions and research interests than a formulated assumptions and core concepts that have incor- and coherent theory: Luckmann and several porated much more of the socio-phenomeno- other researchers (e.g. Luckmann 2002 or logical legacy than might be apparent at first 2006a; Knoblauch 1995; Knoblauch/ sight. The most prominent example is, of Luckmann 2004; Keller 2005a) have devoted a course, the overall focus on knowledge and, considerable part of their oeuvre to analyzing thus, on the cognitive dimensions of institu- the role of language and communication in the tions that has become one of the ‘trademarks’ construction of reality, a ‘turn’ evidenced by the of neoinstitutional theory, in comparison to labelling communicative or discursive con- other more normative or regulative strands of struction of reality. The incorporation of institutional thinking (see Scott 2001). Equally hermeneutics into the sociology of knowledge important are the understanding of what insti- (the hermeneutic sociology of knowledge or tutions are and how they operate, the relevance social scientific hermeneutics as it was previ- of legitimacy, the conceptualization of the ously called) is primarily tied to the work of process of institutionalization, or the role of Hans-Georg Soeffner (e.g. 1989, 2004), but has language and symbolism that owe much to this been taken up by several other scholars in the heritage. In the following sections, I will revive field (e.g. Schröer 1994; Hitzler/Honer 1997; attention to these roots. However, I am not Hitzler/Reichertz/Schröer 1999). tracing solely the historic legacy and impact, Although they have common roots, organi- but argue that by rediscovering and renewing zational institutionalism and the German the tie with the phenomenological sociology of branches of the new sociology of knowledge knowledge, institutional theory could gain pay very little attention to each other, aside much inspiration for theoretical and method- from cursory cross-references (e.g. Keller ological challenges that have dominated the 2005a; Tänzler, Knoblauch, and Soeffner debate in the last decade and for new directions 2006a). While recent institutional research is in institutional research. exploring its common ground with a number of different theoretical approaches (e.g. Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory, Pierre MEANING, KNOWLEDGE AND THE Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and field, or CONCEPTUALIZATION OF INSTITUTIONS Michel Foucault’s discourse theory), the con- cern for organizations and organization theory Many critics of the ‘standard version’ of has been of only minor importance in the organizational institutionalism, especially 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 521
NEW SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE 521
from Scandinavian institutionalism (e.g. Especially with regard to the interactive con- Czarniawska/Joerges 1996; Sahlin-Andersson struction of social meaning and knowledge 1996; Brunsson 1998) or from other interpre- (as opposed to the subjective constitution) tively inspired branches of institutional and the socialization of individuals, Schütz, thinking (e.g. Zilber 2002, 2006; Meyer at that time already living in the U.S., 2003) have claimed that institutional theory explicitly drew on the work of American devotes too much effort to analyzing the tra- pragmatists, mainly of George Herbert jectories of macro-diffusion patterns while Mead, Charles H. Cooley, William James, underestimating the meaning the spreading and William I. Thomas. practices have in the originating as well as Schütz elaborated that individuals work adopting context and the modifications Ð with typifications of actions, situations and translations Ð they undergo in the course of persons that are generated in interaction and their ‘travels.’ Several of the Scandinavian communication. They identify typical actors scholars, for instance Czarniawska and and identities, recognize typical actions and Joerges (1996) or Forssell and Jansson assign typical meanings. To interpret and (1996), explicitly draw attention to the work understand the situation they face, individu- of Schütz, in particular to his notions of typ- als need to draw on the recipe knowledge that ifications contained in the social stocks of is provided by their Lebenswelten. knowledge. This ‘social stock of knowledge’ that the One of the central assumptions derived members of a society share to different from the Schützian legacy is that action is degrees is built up (‘sedimented’) from the meaningful and that meaning is constituted experiences of the generations before them through rules that are sprecific to the social (Schütz/Luckmann 1973). Individuals are field. To recall, Schütz’s objective was to born into a ‘socio-historical a priori’, as give Weber’s interpretive sociology, which Luckmann (e.g. 1983; see also Soeffner identifies the goal of sociology in the under- 1989) calls it, that makes available these standing of action from the subjective mean- institutionalized typifications, frames of ing of the actor, a phenomenological interpretation, actor positions, patterns of grounding (see especially Schütz 1967). In action, etc., and thus delineates the bound- his appreciative, yet critical interpretation of aries and the ‘horizon’ within which people Weber’s work, Schütz highlighted that Weber can meaningfully act Ð and beyond which it had failed to specify the concept of meaning. is impossible to see or understand: All inter- In particular, he asked how meaning is con- ests and preferences, all rationalities, choices stituted by an actor and pointed to the con- and decisions ever imaginable lie within cept’s inherent temporality. He emphasized these borders; all innovations, crises, shocks the difference between the meaning assigned or whatever ‘triggers’ of change we assume by the actors themselves and the meaning have to be interpreted within this horizon to assigned by an observer, and raised the ques- be taken into consideration and have impact. tion how understanding is at all possible Building on this hermeneutic and phenome- given the categorical non-accessibility of nological heritage of Schütz’s work, another person’s consciousness. The micro- Czarniawska and Joerges postulate that ‘we sociological approach Schütz proposed by cannot translate what is wholly unrecogniz- drawing on Husserl’s phenomenology focused able’ (1996: 28). on how ordinary members of a society con- Accordingly, the phenomenological stitute the everyday world they live in Ð the sociology of knowledge is not primarily con- Lebenswelt Ð and on the conditions and prin- cerned with questions of epistemology and ciples according to which intersubjectively methodology, nor with scientific knowledge, shared meaning is constructed and, thus, how the specialized knowledge of intellectuals, or mutual understanding is made possible. the history of ideas and ideologies, but with 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 522
522 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM
the processes and conditions by which a par- (Barley/Tolbert 1997: 96), and is still being ticular spatially and historically embedded used as the main reference when it comes to social field defines what counts as knowl- the definition of institutions or the process of edge and truth – and what does not (Schütz institutionalization (e.g. Zilber 2002; Dobbin 1962; Berger/Luckmann 1989). The central 2004; Dorado 2005; Battilana 2006; object of the hermeneutic reconstruction is Weber/Glynn 2006). As I will discuss in the neither to search for a latent macro-structure following sections, it has lost none of its rel- that unfolds behind the back of the agents nor evance in the decades since its publication: a singular individual perspective. Instead, it Apart from helping to overcome the concep- is the social stocks of knowledge that the tual ambiguity and to re-establish a common acting subjects draw on when constituting understanding of what is meant by institu- subjective meaning, i.e. the socially tions and institutional processes, a concern approved typifications available in a concrete increasingly articulated by scholars, various historical socio-cultural Lebenswelt. Thus, facets of the classic conceptualization can while departing from the Weberian assertion contribute to unsolved issues and current that the goal of sociology is to understand debates in organizational institutionalism. action from the subjective meaning assigned to it, the perspective is nonetheless not subjectivist but a structure analytic approach (a) Institutions and the construction that attempts to reconcile structuralist and of social actors and identities interactionist positions (Soeffner/Hitzler 1994; Reichertz 1999; Soeffner 1989, 2004). The reciprocity of the typified, scripted A focus on the cognition of actors and their action and the type of actor who is expected stocks of knowledge does not Ð as is often to perform the script is central to the notion brought up against the ‘cognitive turn’ in that institutions are constitutive for social organizational institutionalism Ð necessarily actors and actorhood and for organizational entail a de-emphasizing of social structure. institutionalism’s claim against rational Building on this tradition, Berger and choice models that actors’ preferences and Luckmann have elaborated how shared typi- interests are tied to and do not precede the fications become institutions through tradi- institutional order they belong to. Instead of tion, sedimentation, and legitimation. actors using institutions to foster their indi- According to them, the reciprocity of typifi- vidual or collective interests, through institu- cations and the typicality of both habitual- tionalization, not only patterns of scripted ized actions, in the form of action scripts interactions are created, but also specific and of social actors who are expected to social categories of actors, whose social engage in these patterned actions, lie at the identities, worldviews and interests make heart of all institutions – ‘(p)ut differently, sense only within the sedimented body any such typification is an institution’ of social knowledge that has given shape (Berger/Luckmann 1989: 54). This interac- to them (Berger/Luckmann 1989). For tion-oriented and type-based definition is instance, Meyer/Boli/Thomas (1994: 18; still central for organizational institutional- see also Meyer/Jepperson 2000 or J. Meyer, ism. It is mirrored in the early notions of Chapter 34 in this volume) explicitly stress institutions as ‘frameworks of programs or the close, in fact tautological, link between rules establishing identities and activity script and actor-type: scripts for such identities’ (Jepperson 1991: 146; see also Meyer/Boli/Thomas 1994) or Both social actors and the patterns of action they engage in are institutionally anchored. The partic- as ‘shared rules and typifications that iden- ular types of actors perceived by self and tify categories of social actors and their others and the specific forms their activity takes appropriate activities or relationships’ reflect institutionalized rules of great generality 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 523
NEW SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE 523
and scope. It is in this sense that social reality – borrowing Schütz and the sociology of including both social units and socially patterned knowledge have made from pragmatism: action – is ‘socially constructed’ (Berger/ Being a social actor means to know what is Luckmann, 1966). Institutionalized rules, located in the legal, social scientific, customary, linguistic, expected as appropriate in certain situations. epistemological, and other ‘cultural’ foundations This, in turn, implies a definition of the of society, render the relation between actor and situation that is compatible with those of action more socially tautological than causal. others involved and rests on the ability of the Actors enact as much as they act: What they do is actors to take the perspective of the others inherent in the social definition of the actor itself.’ (significant and generalized others) The phenomenological heritage is most vis- (see Cooley 1964; Mead 1965; Thomas ible in John Meyer’s notion of modern social 1967; and Schütz, e.g. 1962). The focus on actors, but it also surfaces in the more recent the reciprocity of perspectives stresses the institutional interest in the multiple social necessity of overlapping relevance systems identities that are a characteristic of the and an intersubjectively shared Lebenswelt, late-modern actor (see also Giddens 1991) and, thus, of socialization and internaliza- and are seen to account for hybridization tion. Successful socialization is the basis for and endogenous institutional change (e.g. the fact-like character of social reality and Rao/Davis/Ward 2000; Rao/Monin/Durand the degree to which institutions become 2003; Meyer/Hammerschmid 2006; Westen- taken-for-granted ‘background programs’ holz 2006). In pluralistic societies, multiple (Berger/Kellner 1984). By framing world- social identities go hand in hand with views and perceptions, institutions guide multiple reference groups (see below), or as behavior prior to any visible sanctions. This James (1968: 42) notes, an individual has ‘as creates the image of institutions being taken many different social selves as there are dis- for granted and enacted almost naturally. tinct groups of persons about whose opinions Internalization mediates between objective he cares.’ A very similar motif is found in and subjective reality and renders the objec- Luckmann’s recent work: The increasing func- tive world subjectively meaningful (Berger/ tional differentiation of society and the frag- Luckmann 1989). It is also the moment mentation of the Lebenswelt more and more where individuals have to actively acquire require the individual to master fragmented specific segments of the social knowledge social identities from various specialized insti- and sediment it in a unique way into their tutionalized domains. As he notes, ‘(l)iving in own subjective knowledge. Without paying society always requires adaption. However, enough attention to the complex and in later modernity the social structure favors a two-way relationship between social and particularly high degree of adaptability, not individual stocks of knowledge, we run only of a cognitive but also characterological the danger of degrading individuals to nature’ (Luckmann 2006b: 11). This, he determined ‘cultural dopes,’ or, on the observes, is happening paradoxically at the macro-level, losing the stratified character of same point in history that the display of an the knowledge distribution of a society and autonomous and individualized self has the related symbolic and structural power become an ‘almost doctrinal obligation for the dimensions out of sight. modern individual’ (2006b: 8). At least the fundamental institutional orientations are perceived as fact-like. Nonetheless, institutions are also supple- (b) Institutional orders, social mented by various mechanisms of social control and power control Ð positive or negative, material or immaterial sanctions Ð to make up for the In addition, the reciprocity of typifications of incompleteness of all socialization in frag- action and actors points to the substantial mented societies. Individual deviance does 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 524
524 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM
not unsettle an established institutional order. historically–empirically unlikely marginal case. A more collective shift towards increasing Within the ‘constitution analysis’ of institutions, reflexivity and attention to institutionalized domination can be bracketed, but not power. (2002: 113, my translation). patterns or the necessity to safeguard institu- tions by actually employing the sanctions For organizational institutionalism, provided, however, might be a first indicator DiMaggio (1988) noted almost two decades of a commencing deinstitutionalization by ago that there is no conceptual ignorance of making the contingency of the institutional- interests and power inherent in the theoreti- ized patterns apparent (e.g. Berger/Kellner cal scaffolding of the approach. All 1984). Although not elaborating the power institutional order is only a preliminary and domination dimensions of institutions achievement and the temporary result of explicitly, Berger and Luckmann emphasize contest. Power is inextricably woven into that ‘(i)nstitutions and symbolic universes institutional stability and change and institu- are legitimated by living individuals, who tionalization is a profoundly political have concrete social locations and concrete process. Although, in the meantime, the chal- social interests’ (1989: 128) and that the lenge has been echoed by several scholars ‘power in society includes the power to who draw attention to interests, politics and determine decisive socialization processes power struggles not only within established and, therefore the power to produce reality’ institutional frames, but particularly in the (1989: 119; emphasis in original). Strikingly processes leading to the definition of what similar, when discussing the need to continu- models, frames, criteria of rationality, subject ously reproduce institutions, DiMaggio positions and interests are appropriate (1988: 13f.) points out that ‘(a)n important (e.g. Dobbin 1994; Clemens/Cook 1999; aspect of institutional work is the socializa- Hoffman 1999; Fligstein 2001; Lounsbury/ tion of new participants, which is undertaken Ventresca 2002; Lounsbury 2003), an most conscientiously by members with the alleged power void has remained among the greatest stake in the existing institutional most frequently expressed points of criticism order.’ The social construction of reality is a against institutional theory. I do not power struggle over the definition of the sit- have the space to enter into a detailed uation with some interpretations succeeding discussion, but I hope to have shown that by over others. For Berger and Luckmann, it is, taking seriously the question of what counts finally, the bigger stick and not the better as knowledge and what doesn’t, as well as argument that imposes the definition of real- the processes and mechanisms by which this ity (1989: 109), which, spun further, points is defined in a society (Schütz 1962), institu- back to the question of domination. In a later tional theory has the potential to address all work, Luckmann highlights again that faces of power and domination. If they do not although social interaction requires, at least receive due attention, it is our current to a certain degree, reciprocity of perspec- research foci that distract us and not short- tives and of relevance systems, this by no comings of the conceptual framework. means entails symmetry of relationships but rather refers to the mutual exchangeability of perspectives that has to be presupposed even (c) Institutional and organizational when fighting. He emphasizes that fields reciprocity is not based on equality. The definition Apart from the constitution of actors and of what is an ‘important’ problem is not essen- attention to power and domination, the con- tially the concern of ‘democratic rationality.’ The solutions are not necessarily devised by ‘equi- ceptualization of institutions in the tradition table’ actors. Institutionalization as rational sym- of the phenomenological sociology of metric contract can be thought of as a knowledge could also help to come to terms 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 525
NEW SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE 525
with the ambiguity in the use of the concept rationalizations or legitimations differ across of ‘field.’ Reciprocity of perspectives time and/or space. They encompass not only requires that institutionalized practices be those actors who are expected to perform directed to some reference group (e.g. an institution, but include all those who Shibutani 1962) or ‘collective audience’ (e.g. expect the institution to be performed, Suchman 1995) that shares the stock of that is, all actors who share the frame of ref- knowledge and is entitled to assess the erence. Institutional fields make homogene- appropriateness and endorse legitimacy, in ity or heterogeneity of meaning and short, ‘whose presumed perspective is used interpretations without institutionalized by an actor as the frame of reference in the orders, forms and practices visible (see e.g. organization of his perceptual field’ the research on translation or editing (Shibutani 1962: 132; italic in original). processes, Czarniawska/Joerges 1996, The definition of fields as connoting actors SahlinÐAndersson 1996) as well as the distri- that partake in common meaning systems bution of knowledge, subject positions and and share cultural-cognitive or normative power inherent in institutions. Moreover, frameworks (e.g. Scott 1994: 207f.) is assuming that the borders of institutional closely related to this understanding. Since fields are floating, the center(s) and periph- one of the core characteristics of institutions eries of institutional orders could become is their ability to bridge time and space, in observable (I thank Kerstin Sahlin for this this sense fields connect actors beyond their point) Ð not only temporally, spatially/geo- temporal and spatial co-presence. The graphically or relating to life-spheres, but second part of Scott’s seminal definition Ð also in terms of the institutional order’s ‘whose participants interact more frequently strength or exclusiveness to define situations and fatefully with one another than with (see below), i.e. the extent of taken-for- actors outside of the field’, however, draws grantedness, or Ð with regard to the inner attention to network structures and interac- composition Ð in terms of the various mani- tion ties that do require some kind of spatial festations of institutional orders (i.e. central and temporal co-presence (see e.g. Giddens beliefs/institutions or peripheral beliefs/insti- 1984 and his distinction between social and tutions). Apart from pointing to new research system integration). directions, this could also contribute In order to disentangle the multiple to a more systematic approach to our notions of field that currently inform institu- current research on institutional change. tional research, I believe it would be helpful Organizational fields focus on the degree to to distinguish the two aspects analytically. In which a field of actors is characterized by a current studies, the terms ‘institutional field’ single predominant or by multiple, poten- and ‘organizational field’ are generally used tially competing institutional orders or synonymously. I suggest using ‘institutional logics. They draw attention to the hetero- field’ to demarcate spheres of institutional- geneity of institutionalized patterns and ized meaning and ‘organizational field’ in interpretation frames in interaction fields. In order to refer to network ties between con- a similar sense, social movement literature stituents that directly and indirectly interact identifies ‘multiorganizational fields’ as with each other. They are both equally complex, structured fields in which individ- relevant and, in most empirical studies, inter- ual and collective actors in changing systems twined, but encompass different phenomena: of alliances and conflict try to mobilize con- Institutional fields focus on shared typifica- sensus for their claims (Klandermans 1992). tions and mutual expectations and can Similarly, in the neoinstitutional tradition, provide insights into how institutional orders Hoffman (1999) defines fields as ‘centers of expand or contract or into how institu- debates in which competing interests negoti- tional logics, institutionalized practices and ate over issue interpretation.’ 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 526
526 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM
The interactive dimension of this reciprocal ACTION AND INSTITUTIONAL orientation is encompassed in the project of ENTREPRENEURS the agents but also in the actual course of the interaction. The failure to adequately account for active Schütz distinguishes between two differ- agents has for a long time been criticized as ent kinds of motives: The ‘in-order-to one of organizational institutionalism’s motive’ is reflected in the action project and weakest points, even by the theory’s propo- in the outcome that the agent imagines. The nents (e.g. DiMaggio 1988; Beckert 1999; primary subjective meaning assigned by an Mutch/Delbridge/Ventresca 2006). In the fol- individual corresponds to this ‘in-order-to lowing section, I will draw attention to two motive.’ The ‘because-of motives’ reveal aspects where organizational institutionalism why agents define the situation and design could greatly benefit from a re-engagement the action the way they do. Thus, while the with the Schützian socio-phenomenology: ‘in-order-to motive’ is future-oriented and the general notion of action on the one only fully comprehensible to the agent alone hand and the conceptualization of institu- (due to the inaccessibility of consciousness), tional entrepreneurs and institutional work the ‘because-of motive’ can only be recon- on the other. structed by analyzing the action context and Building on Weber as well as the philo- individual’s past, i.e. the socio-historical a sophical approaches of Henri Bergson and priori of the Lebenswelt and the individual Edmund Husserl, Schütz (see especially biography. In this reconstruction, the actor 1967) developed the phenomenology in the has no privileged access compared to an direction of an action theory that centers observer. The distinction between the two upon the meaningfulness of action in gen- kinds of motives bridges the dichotomy eral. He takes as a starting point the inten- between oversocialized, determined ‘cultural tionality of consciousness (i.e. consciousness dopes’ and undersocialized atomistic agents’ is always directed to some object) and the free will: Individuals, in their biograph- inherent temporality of all constitution of ical uniqueness of different sedimented meaning. Action differs from passive experi- experiences and different layers of sedimen- ences (i.e. reflexes) and spontaneous activi- tation that result from the temporality of all ties (i.e. to perceive a stimulus from the these experiences, are never free from the environment), insofar as it has a guiding socio-historical a priori of the established project. For Schütz, action is any meaningful institutionalized order into which they are experience that is orientated towards a future born, but equally never determined. While state of affairs (in this sense, not picking the the ‘in-order-to motives’ reflect the freedom phone up is just as much an action as picking to chose and decide, the ‘because-of motives’ it up). In the action design, the individual show the choices, decisions and interests that imagines the action to be completed in the are historically and situationally available future (‘modo futuri exacti’). Schütz points within the agent’s horizon of meaning and out, that ‘we are conscious of an action only from their actor position. if we contemplate it as already over and done Drawing more explicitly on Mead and the with, in short, as an act. This is true even of pragmatists, but also on the socio-phenome- projects, for we project the intended action as nology of Schütz, Emirbayer and Mische an act in the future perfect tense’ (Schütz (1998), whose contribution Ð which they 1967: 64, emphasis in original). Social action, refer to as ‘relational pragmatics’ Ð received and, in particular, interaction, does not merely much attention in the recent institutional the- include this projection, but rather a reciprocal orizing about agency (e.g. Battilana 2006; orientation towards another agent and is Mutch et al. 2006). They distinguish between situated in concrete socio-historical contexts. three temporal dimensions of agency Ð an 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 527
NEW SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE 527
iterational (informed by the past), a projec- my translation) highlights this intentionality tive (oriented towards the future) and a prac- and meaningfulness inherent in all action: tical-evaluative (situationally contextualized) Social reality presupposes intentional activities. dimension Ð which, as they argue, dynami- Social worlds are constructed, maintained, trans- cally interact in each instance of action. They mitted, transformed and, occasionally, destroyed stress that they do not denote different types of through social action that is meaningful to those action, but only analytically different who engage in it. Interactions are meaningful elements, and that, depending on context and when they lead to results that were intended by them. But they are equally meaningful in another, actor, one or the other dimension may be often painful sense, when the consequences of the predominant (Emirbayer/Mische 1998: 972). action differ from those originally intended. Action According to them, situated actors assume is meaningful, whether the bridges and the mar- variable temporal ‘agentic orientations’ in riages that were built for eternity, last or don’t. relation to the different action contexts they (2006a: 20f.) face and may switch between these orienta- To insist that all action is intentional and tions more or less reflexively. In contrast to meaningful entails that all actions Ð no these agentic orientations, in the Schützian matter to what degree individuals rely on pre- conceptualization, the inherent temporality given routines Ð are projected and comprise that simultaneously encompasses future, past ‘in-pre-given order-to motives.’ Thus, even and present is a definitional component of all when enacting highly taken-for-granted insti- social action and, thus, a constitutive charac- tutionalized scripts, they assign subjective teristic. In this conceptualization, the specific meaning and project some finished act into orientation of an agent, no matter in what the future (but see Jepperson 1991). Through temporal direction, finds expression in the their actions, institutional patterns are main- agent’s project of action, i.e. their tained or transformed, sometimes as intended ‘in-order-to motives.’ Therefore, projectivity and sometimes institutions erode because may encompass the creative reconfiguration they cease to make sense. However, this of structure or may equally entail their mainly intentionality and projectedness does not routine incorporation into activities. In this mean that all action is strategic in the sense sense, it is an interesting question, why cele- of rational choice theory or that different brated modern actorhood is so frequently alternatives are weighed against each other in linked to future- and change-oriented action a utilitarian way according to individual projects framed as ‘entrepreneurial,’ while preferences. projects that reflect pastÐoriented traditional- Institutions, by definition, denote a certain ism are not highly appreciated (for a similar durability. However, this emphasis on the sta- point see Hwang and Powell 2005). bility provided by institutions has to be seen In the socio-phenomenological tradition, in the context of the ever-present fragility of meaning is an achievement of an individual’s all order. Berger and Luckmann (1989: 103) consciousness and consciousness is inten- underscore that ‘(t)he legitimation of the tional (Schütz 1967). Thereby, it is of little institutional order is also faced with the relevance whether the future state projected ongoing necessity of keeping chaos at by the individual is actually realized or bay. All social reality is precarious. All whether something completely different societies are construction is the face of occurs. Moreover, the subjective meaning chaos.’ Hence, the existence of order Ð on the may change several times as the course of the macro-level of society, the micro-level of (inter)action unfolds. In addition, the mean- interaction as well as on the individual level ing assigned retrospectively when the agent of identity construction Ð cannot be taken for is reflecting over the finished act is very granted but is an ongoing achievement of the likely different from the primary meaning agents involved. Its reproduction and trans- assigned to the project. Luckmann (2006a, formation are equally fragile. The focus on 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 528
528 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM
the precariousness of order is shared with the the Schützian concept of social action could negotiated order approach to organizations contribute to such a foundation. (e.g. Strauss 1978; Maines/Charlton 1985; As they are referring to specific types, the Fine 1996) Ð an approach that builds on central questions in this context obviously pragmatism and symbolic interactionism as are how we identify institutional entrepre- well as the work of Everett C. Hughes, neurs and institutional work and in what another forefather of neoinstitutionalism (see respect they differ from other actors and their e.g. Zucker 1977; Scott 2001), but is mostly actions. One option would be to tie the iden- neglected in organizational research (for an tification to the outcome, i.e. to institutional exception see e.g. Hallett/Ventresca 2006; change. However, this would be highly Walgenbach/Meyer 2008). Strauss stresses problematic for several reasons: First, as that social order is maintained in continuous Sahlin-Andersson and Engwall (2002) have processes of negotiating reality. For him highlighted, the relationships between actor, (1978: ix) ‘rules and roles are always activities, interests and institutional change breaking down Ð and when they do not, they are often much more indirect. They conclude do not miraculously remain intact without that ‘(t)he institutional entrepreneur is only some effort, including negotiation effort, to one type of actor that is important in the maintain them.’ processes of institutional change’ (2002: In organizational institutionalism, the 294). While change may emerge without insight that not only the primary establish- much effort from those individuals who, ment or the transformation of institutions often retrospectively, get filtered out as involves signifying activities, but that also initiators, it might take just as much the routine reproduction requires continuous resources and work to stabilize an institu- efforts has led to renewed empirical and the- tional arrangement against opponents as it oretical interest in ‘institutional entrepre- would to initiate new procedures. However, neurs’ Ð actors with sufficient resources who to tie the identification of institutional entre- see new institutions as an opportunity to real- preneurs and work to the necessity of defeat- ize interests that they value highly ing resistance or the potential or even the (DiMaggio 1988: 14; see also Dorado 2005; willingness to do so, would inevitably Battilana 2006; Greenwood/Suddaby 2006) directly lead into a ‘multiple faces of power’ – and ‘institutional work’ Ð ‘the purposive debate (Bachrach/Baratz 1962; Lukes 1974; action of individuals and organizations Clegg 1989) and the argument that any insti- aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting tutional explanation has to be especially sen- institutions’ (Lawrence/Suddaby 2006: 218; sitive to all variations of structural and see also DiMaggio 1988; Fligstein 2001). symbolic power that is prevalently mani- From these short definitions, it is evident that fested in the absence of any visible form of the concepts are not intended to provide gen- resistance. eral conceptualizations of actors and action, Drawing on the different kinds of motives but to denote specific types. Hwang and Schütz distinguishes could offer a promising Powell (2005) identify a discomforting infla- option to embed the institutional entrepre- tionary growth in the usage of the term neur within a more general conception of ‘entrepreneur’ and a more general trend to action and provide criteria for the identifica- label all sorts of activities as entrepreneur- tion of the type. I believe that it would be in ship that they link to essentially modern, yet the spirit of the research building on under-analyzed, conceptions of empowered DiMaggio (1988) to use the term for agents individuals. For institutional entrepreneurs to whose action projects and subjective be an endogenous explanation of change, it is meanings (i.e. their ‘in-order-to motives’) are necessary to give the concept a firm institu- directed towards the institutional framework tional grounding. I suggest that drawing on (both future- and change-oriented as well as 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 529
NEW SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE 529
past- and stability-oriented). I interpret the look at the original conceptualization sup- ‘purposive’ in Lawrence and Suddaby’s defi- ports the skepticism: First, in the new sociol- nition as leading the same way.2 Whether ogy of knowledge, the three moments of the they succeed or fail, whether they sponsor dialectical process of reality construction are, stability or change, is a different question, as as is well known, externalization, objectiva- is, by the way, the methodological challenge tion (part of which are the sedimentation of of coming to terms with the temporality of meaning in a social sign system and its insti- the subjective meaning and the categorical tutionalization) and, finally, internalization. non-accessibility of consciousness in con- The transmission to a third person who was crete empirical research designs. To endoge- not involved in the creation Ð no further neously account for their specific resources quantitative spread Ð is required to complete and to explain how they come to have diver- the process of institutionalization. Secondly, gent interests and define the situation in a the meaning of a form or practice is stressed way that they see a window of opportunity on both the level of the individual actors who requires the incorporation of the related have to make sense of the situations they face ‘because-of motives’, i.e. the socio-historical and the level of society as a whole by linking Lebenswelt with its institutionalized knowl- institutionalization to some kind of societal edge and the specific (inter)action context, problem. into the analysis. The enactment of scripted action is tied to certain types of actors, i.e. prevalence of a certain already institutionalized practice is to be expected among actors belonging to the THE PROCESS OF same social categorization. Thus, the ques- INSTITUTIONALIZATION REVISITED tion how far a practice can be expected to spread in terms of actors who perform it or Another prominent example of Berger and situations in which it is to be displayed is Luckmann’s influence on the body of organi- dependent on the typification. Some institu- zational institutionalism is the notion of insti- tions are frequently performed by many tutionalization as a process in which, through members of a society (e.g. institutions relat- repetition, routinization and transmission, ing to meeting and departing, introducing, ephemeral interactions become objectified etc.); some are enacted by most members patterns, and meaning, originally constituted but, in general, only infrequently (e.g. insti- by the individual consciousness, becomes tutions relating to birth or death). Others do part of the socio-historical a priori. This not imply at all that the practices in question notion is explicit in the conceptualization of spread quantitatively (such as institutions advancing institutionalization as sequence of relating to the succession of kings, presidents the stages of habitualization, objectivation, or the Pope). Prevalence within a social sedimentation (Zucker 1977; Tolbert/Zucker category does not entail a quantitatively wide 1996; Colyvas/Powell 2006) and implicitly spread of a form or practice if only a few implicated in studies that regard the broad actors are classified as belonging to this cat- diffusion or increasing density of some struc- egory, no matter how deeply taken for ture or practice within a field as an indicator granted and widely shared the institution for increasing legitimacy Ð the currently might be. Hence, neither is the absence of a dominant model for empirically analyzing wide diffusion indicative of the concept’s institutionalization. Recently, scholars have lack of legitimacy, nor is the spread an indi- started to question the comprehensiveness of cator for the size of the institutional field. this model (e.g. Sahlin-Andersson 1996; Moreover, the observation of a practice or Benford/Snow 2000; Campbell 2004; Meyer form spreading might denote its primary 2004; Lawrence/Suddaby 2006). A closer institutionalization or its translation for other 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 530
530 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM
types of actors or situations, i.e. the expan- Organizational institutionalism has sion of the institutional field’s boundaries. devoted much attention to show how prac- Without understanding the meanings of a tices get institutionalized, maintained or even concept it is impossible to figure out what we deinstitutionalized. Very little attention has are actually observing. Presence or absence been dedicated to why they do. From a of quantitative diffusion of forms of practices European’s perspective, this might be a con- is too ambiguous to be taken as a measure of sequence of the anxiety of many North institutionalization. In addition, a wide American scholars to get into the vicinity of spread in a quantitative sense is not equiva- functionalist explanations (for the relation- lent to a high degree of institutionalization, ship between Schütz and Parsons see their as has often been shown with regard to correspondence edited by Grathoff 1978). management fashions. The sociology of The sociology of knowledge ties the knowledge, particularly research on existence of institutions or new institutional- Deutungsmuster (e.g. Oevermann 1973, izations to the social approval of a situation 2001; Meuser/Sackmann 1992), a concept as inherently problematic. In Berger and that is closely related to Goffman’s frames Luckmann’s words (1989: 69f.), ‘(t)he trans- (1986), links the strength of social expecta- mission of the meaning of an institution is tions to the exclusivity with which they based on the social recognition of that insti- encompass situations (see also Goffman tution as a “permanent” solution of a 1961, on total institutions) and, thus, their “permanent” problem of this collectivity.’ degree of latency (Lüders/Meuser 1997) Institutions are challenged if they cease to be which may range from reflexive availability seen as solutions or if the situation is no to the complete taken-for-grantedness that longer regarded as problematic, or, the argu- characterizes the most powerful typifica- ment turned around, if institutions persist, we tions. Thus, culturally powerful institutions can assume that they continue to reply to a are almost naturalized and drawn close to societal problem, which, however, is not nec- instincts (Douglas 1986; see e.g. Schütze’s essarily the original one (Soeffner in [1991], interesting analysis of the historical Reichertz 2004), nor does this say anything transformations of ‘motherly love’). A high about a ‘rationality’ of this solution. Thus, degree of latency makes it impossible for not merely the spread of institutions, but individuals to ignore the institutionalized rather the question of which societal problem expectations, as they are compelling even for the actors defined and attended to is of cen- those who deliberately try to defect. They, tral concern. Societies only stabilize too, have to actively make reference, for important forms of action, and, on the macro- example by feeling the urge to account for level, the societal relevance system can be their non-compliance (e.g. Elsbach 1994), by inferred from the repertoire of existing pretending to adhere or by employing decou- institutions (the ‘institutional economy’, pling strategies (Meyer/Rowan 1977; Oliver Luckmann 2002). This emphasis on the close 1991) or simply by feeling guilty. From this linkage between institution and context perspective, decoupling and symbolic accounts partly for the heterogeneity of insti- window-dressing activities, merely rhetorical tutions and for the observation that concepts adoptions of practices, etc. are not necessar- and their theorizations cannot be trans- ily antagonistic to institutions (but see ferred ‘wholesale’ from one social sphere to Tolbert/Zucker 1996). On the contrary, they the next. In Soeffner’s words (2006, my might point to socially powerful expectations translation), that can not be neglected. The severity with (t)hey are all historical plants that owe their which the disappointment of social appearance to the cultural landscapes and regions expectations is sanctioned evidences the in which they have grown. Their soil and their institution’s relevance and centrality. nourishment are the particular problems of 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 531
NEW SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE 531
concrete societies, times and situations. They are jewellery, clothes or graves, or rituals are the concrete answers to concrete problematic situ- other forms in which social knowl- ations, that is, concerning their content and phe- edge is sedimented. Further, language is the notype, they are bound to specific socio-historical contexts and are inexchangeable – unless they be prime instrument for the transmission of transferred with political and/or ideological power knowledge, thus, for socialization and inter- and continuous surveillance from one culture to nalization. Moreover, the mobilization of the other, superseding this culture’s representa- legitimacy is a mainly discursive process. tions of order or pushing them into the back- Berger and Luckmann (1989: 64) stress that ground. (2006: 64) ‘the edifice of legitimation is built upon lan- Again, there are obvious similarities espe- guage and uses language as its principal cially to research conducted in the tradition instrumentality.’ In a later publication, of the Scandinavian institutionalism on trans- Luckmann (2006: 22, my emphasis and lations and editing processes, but also to translation) asserts that, although it would be studies on contesting institutional logics (e.g. too narrow to confine knowledge to discur- Reay/Hinings 2005) or on framing processes sive knowledge and all human praxis to com- (e.g. Benford/Snow 2000). In addition to this municative interactions, ‘the human social overlap of research questions, the sociology world is at least mainly constructed in com- of knowledge provides a rigorous repertoire municative interaction.’ Just like every other of hermeneutic procedures to be used in form of social action, communicative actions empirical analyses that follow strict rules of also get habitualized and institutionalized. interpretation and documentation and war- This requires looking beyond the actual con- rant a ‘monitored and controlled understand- tent of communication and examining the ing’ (Soeffner 2004; see also e.g. Soeffner formats in which it is produced Ð the commu- 1989; Flick/von Kardoff/Steinke 2004; for an nicative genres (Luckmann 2002, 2006a; English-speaking example in organiza- Knoblauch 1995; Knoblauch/Luckmann tion research see Lueger/Sandner/Meyer/ 2004). Genres, such as jokes, greetings, Hammerschmid 2005). This could contribute prayers, job interviews, emails, exams, par- considerably to enhancing the appreciation liamentary speeches, performance appraisal, for qualitative research methods in organiza- or gossip are more or less obligatory interac- tional institutionalism. tion patterns that are available to actors as part of the social knowledge stocks. The sta- bilization of communication into genres serves the same purpose as institutionaliza- LANGUAGE, DISCOURSE AND tion in general. It ‘frees the individual from COMMUNICATIVE INSTITUTIONS the burden of “all those decisions” ’ (Berger/Luckmann 1989: 53). Genres give Language is a main focus in current research, orientation and help in coordinating both in organizational institutionalism and in and structuring interaction by providing the phenomenological sociology of knowl- typical expectations with respect to the edge. Institutionalization, apart from the synchronization of actors and by standardiz- transmission from one generation to the next, ing the interaction sequences. They are is bound to social knowledge that is intersub- the ‘communicative institutions’ of a par- jectively available through its sedimentation ticular society, and, taken together, constitute in all sorts of symbol systems. Language a society’s ‘communicative economy’ plays a crucial role in several respects: It is (Luckmann 2002). the most important sign system and In organizational institutionalism, lan- ‘reservoir’ of typifications and institutional guage and symbolism have always had a knowledge, although by no means the only central role Ð too central in the eyes of some one. Artefacts, such as factories or churches, critics (e.g. Perrow 1985). Here, a focus has 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 532
532 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM
been on the availability of accounts that of knowledge. The replacement of the com- actors do not have to invent anew when municative construction of reality with a trying to legitimate their proceeding, but that discursive is meant to underscore this come ‘ready-made’ with the theorization of emphasis. the concepts in question (e.g. Meyer/Rowan It is evident that especially the commu- 1977, Strang/Meyer 1993; Elsbach 1994; nicative and discursive strands of the sociol- Lounsbury/Glynn 2001; Creed/Scully/Austin ogy of knowledge have amazing overlaps 2002; Meyer 2004; Suddaby/Greenwood with the current agenda of organizational 2005). Zucker (1977: 728) points out that institutionalism and could contribute consid- when acts have ready-made accounts, they erably to future research. In the context of are institutionalized. Scott and Lyman (1970: organizational studies, communicative 93), who had a strong impact on organiza- genres as social institutions have been ana- tional institutionalism’s understanding of lyzed, e.g. by Yates and Orlikowski (1992), accounts, explicate that they introduced the who, building on rhetorical theory and concept in order to bring together Schütz’s Giddens’ structuration theory, come to a emphasis on taken-for-granted social recipes strikingly similar definition of a genre as ‘a ‘everyone knows’ and C. W. Mills’ (1940) typified communicative action invoked in ‘vocabularies of motive.’ The repertories of response to a recurrent situation’ (Yates/ such ‘vocabularies of motive’ are distributed Orlikowski 1992: 301). In organizational within a field according to social position studies, interesting new genres abound (e.g. and identity, and, thus, are tailored for spe- emails, homepages, sustainability reports, cific categories of actors to use in typical sit- hearings, accreditation reports). Like all uations. In the terminology of the institutions, genres attend to fundamental phenomenological sociology of knowledge, and recurrent communicative problems that they are ready-made because they are part of are typical for a particular field. Since these the socio-historical a priori (Luckmann problems and the socially approved way to 2006a). attend to them are own to a specific field, dif- More recently, a number of institutional- ferent communities use different commu- ists have suggested drawing on discourse nicative economies (Luckmann 2002) or analysis (e.g. Phillips/Lawrence/Hardy genre repertoires (Orlikowski/Yates 1994), 2004) or rhetorical analysis (e.g. Suddaby/ and like all institutionalized forms, genres Greenwood 2005) to strengthen the micro- can not travel from one social context to the foundation of institutional processes. In next without translation or editing activities. order to overcome the micro-bias and to Not only are genres closely related to institu- encompass the ongoing political processes tionalized contexts, but often they are also related to the production, circulation, trans- constitutive of them, that is, these contexts formation and manifestation of knowledge at ‘may actually be defined through the use of the meso- or macro-level, researchers in the such genres’ (Knoblauch/Luckmann 2004: tradition of the hermeneutic sociology of 306). Changes in the communicative econ- knowledge (e.g. Keller 2005a, 2005b; omy of a field are, thus, indicative of trans- Keller/Hirseland/Schneider/Viehöver formations of institutional regimes or logics. 2001, 2005) also direct attention to Many of the analyses of the spread of new discourses as analytic devices. Keller institutional logics into other fields focus on (2005a) suggests integrating the work of language and it would be interesting to read Gusfield (1981), the social movement them in terms of the involved genres, e.g. research particularly in the tradition of Oakes, Townley, and Cooper’s (1998) analy- Gamson (e.g. Gamson/Modigliani 1989) sis of how the use of business plan in a public and, further, Foucault’s discourse theory into organization facilitated the shift from a cul- the phenomenologically oriented sociology tural to an economic rationality. In addition, 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 533
NEW SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE 533
it could be interesting to see if the different revisiting its own conceptual background and types of institutional work (Lawrence/ from a closer engagement with the Suddaby 2006) or legitimating efforts socio-phenomenological tradition. For exam- (Suchman 1995) rely on or constitute differ- ple, a closer adherence to the sociology of ent genres, i.e. if the use of particular genres knowledge could help disentangle diffusion can be seen as a cue for institutional entre- research and the analyses of institutionaliza- preneurs at work, or to see how the global tion processes, overcome the power and diffusion of rationalization according to the agency void, or refocus attention on one of world polity approach (e.g. Meyer 2005) is organizational institutionalism’s core displayed in the communicative economies. strengths Ð stability that is accomplished amid ever changing situations and constella- tions of agents after more than a decade of preoccupation with change and heterogene- CONCLUSION ity. In addition, we are reminded of other symbol systems besides language (e.g. arte- Organizational institutionalism and the facts, design, buildings, architecture, etc.) various branches of the German-speaking that transport institutional knowledge. For sociology of knowledge share roots in the example the relevance of ‘locales’ for the phenomenologically inspired Social evoking of institutional patterns is still Construction of Reality. My intent in this underemphasized in institutional research. chapter was to assume an institutional stand- Further, an engagement with the distribution point and look over the fence to see what of knowledge on the level of the field could be gained by reopening a dialogue. relates sedimentation to discrimination and I have shown that neoinstitutional theory’s opens the view on institutionalized knowl- main concepts still bear a strong socio-phe- edge/power structures and domination. nomenological imprint, even if this heritage Finally, particularly with regard to a potential has somewhat become the status of tacit ‘discursive turn,’ the sociology of knowledge assumptions. I have argued that in terms of with its focus on genres and knowledge core conceptualizations, such as agency, regimes has a much more ‘indigenously’ meaning, social and individual knowledge, institutionally anchored agenda than institu- or Lebenswelt, for a phenomenologically tional theory presently seems to have. inspired approach like organizational institu- tionalism it is impossible to look back beyond the work of Alfred Schütz. A firmer grounding in his tradition could help to over- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS come the conceptual ambiguity that is cur- rently being criticized by many of the For helpful discussions and conversations theory’s proponents. I have outlined that, and insightful comments on earlier drafts of apart from the historical legacy, many of the this chapter I would like to thank Markus current research questions overlap with the Höllerer, Peter Leisink, John Meyer, Kerstin work done in the German-speaking sociol- Sahlin, Roy Suddaby and Marc Ventresca. ogy of knowledge and have examined poten- tial contributions the socio-phenomenology can make to current debates. I have shown that several of the current challenges do not NOTES require organizational institutionalism to ‘import’ concepts from other theoretical 1 Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann both traditions; important impulses and potential have Austrian roots as well as Alfred Schütz, who new directions could be gained from had to leave Austria in 1938. 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 534
534 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM
2 Similarly, coming from the social movement Cooley, C.H. 1964. Human Nature and the research, Snow and Benford (2000: 624) conceptual- Social Order. New York: Schocken. ize their frame alignment processes as ‘(s)trategic Creed, W.E.D., M. Scully, and J.R. Austin. 2002. efforts by SMOs to link their interests and interpretive ‘Clothes make the person? The tailoring of frames with those of prospective constituents and legitimating accounts and the social con- actual or prospective resource providers’ and Klandermans (1988) distinguishes ‘consensus mobi- struction of identity.’ Organization Science, lization’ (the ‘deliberate attempt by a social actor to 13: 475–96. create consensus’) from ‘consensus formation’ Czarniawska, B., and B. Joerges. 1996. ‘Travels (‘unplanned convergence of meaning’). of ideas’, in B. Czarniawska and G. Sevón, eds., Translating Organizational Change. Berlin and New York: deGruyter, pp. 13–48. DiMaggio, P.J. 1988. ‘Interest and agency in REFERENCES institutional theory’, in L.G. Zucker, ed., Institutional Patterns and Organizations. Bachrach, P., and M. Baratz. 1962. ‘The two Culture and Environment. Cambridge, MA: faces of power.’ American Political Science Ballinger, pp. 3–21. Review, 56: 947–52. DiMaggio, P.J., and W.W. Powell. 1991. Barley, S.R., and P.S. Tolbert. 1997. ‘Introduction’, in W.W. Powell and ‘Institutionalization and structuration: P.J. DiMaggio, eds., The New Institutionalism Studying the links between action and insti- in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, London: tution.’ Organization Studies, 18: 93–117. University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–38. Battilana, J. 2006. ‘Agency and institutions: Dobbin, F. 1994. ‘Cultural models of organiza- The enabling role of individuals’ social posi- tion: The social construction of rational tion.’ Organization, 13: 653–76. organizing principles’, in D. Crane, ed., The Beckert, J. 1999. ‘Agency, entrepreneurs, and Sociology of Culture. Oxford: Blackwell, institutional change. The role of strategic pp. 117–41. choice and institutionalized practices in Dobbin, F. 2004. ‘How institutions create organizations.’ Organization Studies, 20: ideas: Notions of public and private effi- 777–99. ciency from early French and American rail- Benford, R.D., and D.A. Snow. 2000. ‘Framing roading.’ L’Année de la Régulation, 8: processes and social movements.’ Annual 15–50. Review of Sociology, 26: 611–39. Dorado, S. 2005. ‘Institutional entrepreneur- Berger, P.L., and T. Luckmann. 1989. The Social ship, partaking, and convening.’ Organization Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY: Studies, 26: 385–414. Anchor. Douglas, M. 1986. How Institutions Think. Berger, P.L., and H. Kellner. 1984. Für Eine Neue Syracuse: Syracuse University. Press. Soziologie. Frankfurt/Main: Fischer. Elsbach, K.D. 1994. ‘Managing organizational Brunsson, N. 1998. ‘Homogeneity and hetero- legitimacy in the California cattle industry.’ geneity in organizational forms as result Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 57–88. of cropping–up processes’, in N. Brunsson and Emirbayer, M., and A. Mische. 1998. ‘What is J.P. Olsen, eds., Organizing Organizations. agency?’ American Journal of Sociology, Bergen–Sandviken: Fagbokvorlag, pp. 259–78. 103, 4: 962–1023. Campbell, J.L. 2004. Institutional Change and Fine, G.A. 1996. Kitchens: The Culture of Globalization. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. Restaurant Work. University of California Clegg, S.R. 1989. Frameworks of Power. Press. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Flick, U., E. von Kardoff, and I. Steinke, eds. Clemens, E.S., and J.M. Cook. 1999. ‘Politics 2004. A Companion to Qualitative Research. and institutionalism: Explaining durability London: Sage. and change.’ American Review of Sociology, Fligstein, N. 2001. ‘Social skill and the theory of 25: 441–66. fields.’ Sociological Theory, 19: 105–25. Colyvas, J., and W.W. Powell. 2006. ‘Roads to Forsell, A. and D. Jansson. 1996. ‘The logic of institutionalization.’ Research in Organizational organizational transformation: On the con- Behavior, 21: 305–53. version of non–business organizations’, in 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 535
NEW SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE 535
B. Czarniawska and G. Sevón, eds., and P.J. DiMaggio, (eds). The New Institution- Translating Organizational Change. Berlin alism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: and New York: de Gruyter, pp. 93–115. University of Chicago Press, pp. 143–63. Gamson, W., and A. Modigliani. 1989. ‘Media Keller, R., A. Hirseland, W. Schneider, and discourse and public opinion on nuclear W. Viehöver, eds. 2001. Handbuch power.’ American Journal of Sociology, 1: Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse, Bd. 1–37. 1: Theorien und Methoden. Opladen: Leske Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. + Budrich. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Keller, R. 2005a. Wissenssoziologische Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self–Identity. Diskursanalyse. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Keller, R. 2005b, September. ‘Analysing Stanford: Stanford University Press. Discourse. An Approach From the Sociology Goffman, E. 1961. Asylums. Essays on the of Knowledge.’ Forum: Qualitative Social Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Research, 6, 3: 32. http://www.qualitative- Inmates. New York: Doubleday. research.net/fqs-texte/3-05/05-3-32-e.htm Goffman, E. 1986. Frame Analysis. Boston: [September 15, 2005]. Northeastern University Press. Keller, R., A. Hirseland, W. Schneider, and Grathoff, R. ed. 1978. The Theory of Social W. Viehöver, eds. 2005. Die Diskursive Action: The Correspondence of Alfred Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Konstanz: Schutz and Talcott Parsons. Bloomington UVK. and London: Indiana University Press. Klandermans, B. 1988. ‘The formation Greenwood, R. and R. Suddaby. 2006. and mobilization of consensus,’ in ‘Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi and S. Tarrow, The big five accounting firms.’ Academy of (eds.), From Structure to Action: Comparing Management Journal, 49: 27–48. Movement Research Across Cultures, CT and Gusfield, J.R. 1981. The Culture of Public London: JAI Press, pp. 173–97. Problems. Chicago, London: Univ. of Klandermans, B. 1992. ‘The social construc- Chicago Press. tion of protest and multiorganizational Hallett, T., and M.J. Ventresca, Marc J. 2006. fields’, in A.D. Morris and C. McClurg ‘Inhabited institutions: Social interactions Mueller, eds., Frontiers in Social Movement and organizational form in Gouldner’s Theories. New Haven: Yale University Press, Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy.’ Theory & pp. 77–103. Society, 35: 216–36. Knoblauch, H. 1995. Kommunikationskultur. Hitzler, R., and A. Honer, eds. 1997. Berlin: de Gruyter. Sozialwissenschaftliche Hermeneutik. Opla- Knoblauch, H., and T. Luckmann. 2004. ‘Genre den: Leske + Budrich. analysis’, in U. Flick, E. von Kardoff, and Hitzler, R., J. Reichertz, and N. Schröer, eds. I. Steinke, (eds.), A Companion to Qualitative 1999. Hermeneutische Wissenssoziologie. Research. London: Sage, pp. 303–7. Konstanz: UVK. Lawrence, T.B., and R. Suddaby. 2006. ‘Institutions Hoffman, A.J. 1999. ‘Institutional evolution and and institutional work’, in S.R. Clegg, change: Environmentalism and the US chemi- C. Hardy, W.R. Nord, and T. Lawrence, T., cal industry.’ Academy of Management eds., The Sage Handbook of Organization Journal, 42: 351–71. Studies. London: Sage, pp. 215–54. Hwang H. and W.W. Powell, 2005. Institutions Lounsbury, M. 2003. ‘The problem of order and Entrepreneurship, in Handbook of revisited’, in R. Westwood and S. Clegg, eds., Entrepreneurship Research. Kluwer Publishers, Debating Organizing. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 179–210. pp. 210–19. James, W. 1968. ‘The self’, in C. Gordon Lounsbury, M. and M.A. Glynn. 2001. ‘Cultural and K. Gergen, eds., The Self in Social Inter- entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and the action, Vol. I. New York: John Wiley & Sons, acquisition of resources.’ Strategic pp. 41–50. Management Journal, 22: 545–64. Jepperson, R. 1991. ‘Institutions, institutional Lounsbury, M. and M.J. Ventresca, eds. 2002. effects, and institutionalism’, in W.W. Powell Social structure and organizations revisited. 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 536
536 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM
Research in the Sociology of Organizations, construction of social agency.’ Sociological 19. JAI Press/Elsevier. Theory, 18: 100–20. Luckmann, T. 1983. Life-World and Social Meyer, R.E. 2003. ‘Translating shareholder Realities. London: Heinemann. value Frame alignment strategies and discur- Luckmann, T. 2002. Wissen und Gesellschaft. sive opportunity structure’. Paper presented Konstanz: Universitätsverlag. at 19th EGOS Colloquium, Copenhagen. Luckmann, T. 2006a ‘Die kommunikative Meyer, R.E. 2004. Globale Managementkonzepte Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit’, in D. Tänzler, und Lokaler Kontext. Wien: Facultas. H. Knoblauch, and H.-G. Soeffner, eds., Neue Meyer, R.E., and G. Hammerschmid. 2006. Perspektiven der Wissenssoziologie. Konstanz: ‘Changing institutional logics and executive UVK, pp. 15–26. identities.’ American Behavioral Scientist, 49: Luckmann, T. 2006b. Personal Identity as a 1000–14. Sociological Category. http://www.hsd.hr/ Mills, C.W. 1940. ‘Situated actions and vocab- docs/Luckmann-personal_identity.pdf. ularies of motive.’ American Sociological Lukes, St. 1974. Power: A Radical View. Review, 5: 904–13. London: Macmillan. Mutch, A., R. Delbridge, and M.J. Ventresca. Lüders, C., and M. Meuser. 1997. 2006. ‘Situating organizational action: The ‘Deutungsmusteranalyse’, in R. Hitzler and relational sociology of organizations.’ A. Honer, eds., Sozialwissenschaftliche Organization, 13: 607–25. Hermeneutik. Opladen: Leske+Budrich, Oakes, L.S., B. Townley, B. and D.J. Cooper. pp. 57–79. 1998. ‘Business planning as pedagogy: Lueger, M., K. Sandner, R. Meyer, and Language and control in a changing institu- G. Hammerschmid. 2005. ‘Contextualizing tional field.’ Administrative Science influence activities. An objective hermeneutical Quarterly, 43: 257–92. approach.’ Organization Studies, 26: 1145–68. Oevermann, U. 1973. Zur Analyse der Struktur Maines, D., and J. Charlton. 1985. ‘The von sozialen Deutungsmustern, Fragment, negotiated order approach to the study of unpublished manuscript, Frankfurt/Main social organization.’ Studies in Symbolic (www.objektivehermeneutik.de) Interaction, Supplement 1, pp. 271–308. Oevermann, U. 2001. ‘Die Struktur sozialer Mead, G.H. 1965. Mind, Self and Society. Deutungsmuster.’ Sozialersinn. Zeitschrift Für Chicago: University of Chicago Press Hermeneutische Sozialforschung, 1: 35–81. Meuser, M., and R. Sackmann. 1992. Oliver, C. 1991. ‘Strategic responses to institu- ‘Zur Einführung: Deutungsmusteransatz tional processes.’ Academy of Management und empirische Wissenssoziologie’, in Review, 16: 145–79. M. Meuser and R. Sackmann, eds., Analyse Orlikowski, W.J., and J. Yates. 1994. ‘Genre Sozialer Deutungsmuster. Pfaffenweiler: repertoire: Examining the structuring of Centaurus, pp. 9–37. communicative practices in organizations.’ Meyer, J.W., J. Boli, and G.M. Thomas. 1994. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 541–74. ‘Ontology and rationalization in the Western Perrow, C. 1985. ‘Review essay: Overboard cultural account’, in W. R. Scott and with myth and symbols.’ American Journal J. W. Meyer, eds., Institutional Environments of Sociology, 91: 151–5. and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Phillips, N., T.B. Lawrence, and C. Hardy. 2004. Sage, pp. 9–27. ‘Discourse and institutions.’ Academy of Meyer, J.W., and B. Rowan. 1977. Management Review, 29: 635–52. ‘Institutionalized organizations: Formal struc- Powell, W.W., and P. DiMaggio, eds. 1991. The ture as myth and ceremony.’ American New Institutionalism in Organizational Analy- Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–63. sis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Meyer, J.W. 2005. Weltkultur: Wie die Psathas, G.. 2004. ‘Alfred Schutz’s influence on Westlichen Prinzipien die Welt Durchdringen. American sociologists and sociology.’ Human Edited by G. Krücken. Frankfurt/Main: Studies, 27: 1–35. Suhrkamp. Rao, H., G.M. Davis, and Andrew Ward. 2000. Meyer, J.W., and R. Jepperson. 2000. ‘The ‘Embeddedness and social identity and ‘actors’ of modern society: The cultural mobility: Why organizations leave 9781412931236-Ch21 5/19/08 4:16 PM Page 537
NEW SOCIOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE 537
NASDAQ and join the New York Stock Scott, M.B., and S.M. Lyman. 1968. Exchange.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, ‘Accounts.’ American Sociological Review, 45: 268–92. 33: 46–62. Rao, H, P. Monin, and R. Durand. 2003. Scott, M. B., and S.M. Lyman. 1970. ‘Accounts, ‘Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle deviance, and social order’, in cuisine as an identity movement in French J. D. Douglas, ed., Deviance and gastronomy.’ American Journal of Sociology, Respectability: The Social Construction of 108: 795–843. Moral Meanings. New York: Basic Books, Reay, T., and C.R. (Bob) Hinings. 2005. ‘The pp. 89–119. recomposition of an organizational field: Scott, W.R. 1994. ‘Conceptualizing organiza- Health care in Alberta.’ Organization Studies, tional fields’, in H.-U. Derlien, U. Gerhardt 26: 351–84. and F.W. Scharpf, eds., Systemrationalität Reichertz, J. 1999. ‘Über das Problem der und Partialinteresse. Baden–Baden: Nomos, Gültigkeit von Qualitativer Sozialforschung’, in pp. 203–21. R. Hitzler, J. Reichertz, and N. Schröer, eds., Scott, W.R. 2001. Institutions and Organiza- Hermeneutische Wissenssoziologie, Konstanz: tions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. UVK, pp. 319–48. Shibutani, T. 1962. ‘Reference groups Reichertz, J. 2004, September. ‘Das and social control’, in A.M. Rose, ed., Handlungsrepertoire von Gesellschaften Human Behavior and Social Processes: An erweitern. Hans-Georg Soeffner im Interactionist Approach. London: Routledge Gespräch mit Jo Reichertz.’ Forum: & Kegan Paul, pp. 128–47. Qualitative Social Research, 5, 3: 29. Soeffner, H.-G. 1989. Auslegung des Alltags –
538 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALISM
Tänzler, D., H. Knoblauch, and H.-G. Soeffner. Westenholz, A. 2006. ‘Identity work and 2006a. ‘Neue Perspektiven der Wissensso- meaning arena.’ American Behavioral ziologie’, in D. Tänzler, H. Knoblauch, and Scientist, 49: 1015–29. H.-G. Soeffner, eds., Neue Perspektiven der Yates, J., and W.J. Orlikowski. 1992. ‘Genres of Wissenssoziologie. Konstanz: UVK, pp. 7–14. organizational communication: A structura- Thomas, W.I. 1967. ‘The definition of the situ- tional approach to studying communication ation’, in J.G. Manis, and B.N. Meltzer, eds., and media.’ Academy of Management Symbolic interaction. A Reader in Social Review, 17: 299–326. Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Zilber, T.B. 2002. ‘Institutionalization as an pp. 315–21. interplay between actions, meanings, and Tolbert, P.S., and L.G. Zucker. 1996. ‘The insti- actors: The case of a rape crisis centre in tutionalization of institutional theory’, in Israel.’ Academy of Management Journal, S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy, and W.R. Nord, (eds.), 45: 234–54. Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Zilber, T.B. 2006. ‘The work of the symbolic Sage, pp. 175–90. in institutional processes: Translations Walgenbach, P. and R.E. Meyer. 2008. of rational myths in Israeli hi–tech.’ Academy Neoinstitutionalistische Organisationstheorie. of Management Journal, 49: 279–301. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Zucker, L.G. 1977. ‘The role of institutionaliza- Weber, K., and M.A.Glynn. 2006. ‘Making tion in cultural persistence.’ American sense with institutions: Context, thought Sociological Review, 42, 5: 726–43. and action in Carl Weick’s theory.’ Organization Studies, 27: 1639–1660.