What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

BRUNO LATOUR, The pasteurization of France, trans. Alan Sheridan and John Law, Cambridge, Mass., and London, Harvard University Press, 1988, 8vo, pp. 273, £23.95. GEORGES CANGUILHEM, Ideology and rationality in the history of the life sciences, trans. Arthur Goldhammer, Cambridge, Mass., and London, The MIT Press, 1988, 8vo, pp. xi, 160, £17.95. Bruno Latour has written a wonderfully funny book about himself. It is difficult, however, to summarize a text committed to the view that \"Nothing is, by itself, either reducible or irreducible to anything else\", (p. 158). In Latour's opinion, the common view that sociologists of knowledge and scientists are opposed is incorrect. Both groups, according to Latour, are the authors of identical mistakes: reductionism and, relatedly, attempting to conjoin (in the instance of the sociologist) science and society, or (in the instance of the scientist) keeping them apart. For Latour, there are only forces or resistances which different groups encounter and attempt to conquer by forming alliances. These groups, however, are not simply the actors of conventional sociology. They include, for example, microbes, the discovery of the Pasteurians, with which they have populated our world and which we must now take notice of in any encounter or war in which we engage. War is a fundamental metaphor for Latour, since in a war or a battle clashes of armies are later called the \"victory\" of a Napoleon or a Kutuzov. Likewise, he argues, the Pasteurization of France can be viewed as a battle, with its field and its myriad contestants, in which opposing sides attempted to mould and coerce various forces of resistance. Strangely, he points out, the outcome of this huge battle, the labour and struggle of these masses, we attribute to the scientific genius of Pasteur. Pasteur's genius, however, says Latour, lay not in science (for this could be yet another way of making science and society distinct) but as strategist. Pasteur was able to cross disciplinary lines, recruiting allies to laboratory science by persuading them that they were recruiting him. This was possible because, like the armies in battle, they had already done the work of the general. Thus Pasteur's microbiology, which might conventionally be seen as a whole new science, can also be construed as a brilliant reformulation of all that preceded it and made it possible. Hygienists seized on the work of the Pasteurians and the two rapidly became powerful allies because \"The time that they [the hygienists] had made was now working for them\" (p. 52). French physicians, on the other hand, resisted recruitment, since for them it meant enslavement. Finally, however, they recruited the Pasteurians to their enterprise. Pasteurian public health was turned into a triumph of medicine. It is impossible to read this book and not substitute Latour for Pasteur. At the head of his own army, increasingly enlarged by the recruitment of allies, Latour now presents us, in his own language, with something we have made, or at least made possible. The cynic might say, using the old jibe against sociologists, that Latour has explained to us in his own language everything we knew anyway. Retorting thus, however, would be to unselfconsciously make an ally of Latour and miss the point by a narrow margin that might as well be a million miles. Latour says all this much more clearly (and certainly more wittily) than any review. Read it, but beware; in spite of Latour's strictures about irreducibility, the text is not what it seems. This is a recruitment brochure: Bruno needs you. Among the many historians whom Latour convicts by quotation of mistaking the general for the army, Pasteur for all the forces at work in French society, is Georges Canguilhem. Latour uses two quotes from Canguilhem, both taken from the original French version of Ideology and rationality in the life sciences, first published in 1977. Reading Canguilhem after Latour induces a feeling akin to culture shock. Astonishingly, Canguilhem seems almost Anglo-American. Anyone familiar with Canguilhem's epistemological universe would hardly be surprised to discover that Latour finds in it perspectives different from his own. After all, Canguilhem remains committed to the epistemologically distinct entity science or, better still, sciences. Likewise he employs distinctions between science and ideology, as in Spencerian ideology and Darwinian science, which will seem familiar, possibly jaded to English-reading eyes. His text is liberally seeded with unLatourian expressions, including injunctions to distinguish \"between ideology and science\" (p. 39), lamentations that eighteenth-century medicine \"squandered its energy in the erection of systems\" (p. 53), rejoicing that physiology \"liberated itself' from classical anatomy (p. 54), and regret that \"Stahl's influence ... seriously impeded experimental

/pdf/bruno-latour-the-pasteurization-of-france-trans-alan-syp9mg0jqd.pdf

Bruno Latour, The pasteurization of France , trans. Alan Sheridan and John Law, Cambridge, Mass., and London, Harvard University Press, 1988, 8vo, pp. 273, £23.95. - Georges Canguilhem, Ideology and rationality in the history of the life sciences , trans. Arthur Goldhammer, Cambridge, Mass., and London, The MIT Press, 1988, 8vo, pp. xi, 160, £17.95.

The literature on case studies, both in the field of international business (IB) and in the social sciences more generally, has tended to focus on the methods of data production and analysis suited to this research strategy. In contrast, in this paper we investigate methods of theorising from case studies. We seek to understand how case researchers theorise, and how future IB research might utilise case studies for theorising. By means of a qualitative content analysis of case studies published in Journal of International Business Studies, Academy of Management Journal and Journal of Management Studies, we construct a typology of theorising from case studies. Two dimensions of the case study, namely causal explanation and contextualisation, form the basis for our typology. We distinguish four methods of theorising – inductive theory-building, interpretive sensemaking, natural experiment and contextualised explanation – only the first of which has been widely used in JIBS in the period that we investigate. On the basis of our own qualitative analysis, we show the limitations of inductive theory-building, and argue that greater utilisation of the other methods of theorising would enhance the case study's explanatory power and potential for contextualisation. We argue for a more pluralist future for IB research.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057%2Fjibs.2010.55.pdf

Theorising from Case Studies: Towards a Pluralist Future for International Business Research

'Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony', American Journal of Sociology, 83, pp. 340-63.

From an historical and sociological perspective, ‘integrated care’ has emerged as part of institutional efforts to break up professional fiefdoms, especially of subspecialists entrenched in hospitals, and to reorganise services around clinically integrated pathways and services for the patients. It was the more enlightened part of what I have called the ‘buyers’ revolt’, which occurred in the 1980s when those who had long paid the bills (insurers, governments, employers) became so fed up by the waste, excesses, and variability of services delivered under professional dominance that they started to take forceful action w1x. This book is a masterpiece of historical work and organisational analysis of that revolt at its centre, the San Francisco Bay area.

/pdf/institutional-change-and-healthcare-organizations-from-x3os3sbx11.pdf

Institutional change and healthcare organizations: from professional dominance to managed care

Despite the centrality of fields as a concept in organizational research, the processes by which fields form and change have not been studied in great depth. By situating action in time and space, field-configuring events (FCEs) offer valuable settings for researchers seeking insight into such processes. This paper develops a theory of accounts as a way to understand a mechanism by which institutional entrepreneurs seek to shape fields and influence the institutions that govern them. Actors produce and distribute justified accounts – narratives that describe the way work in the field ought to be done – and attempt to persuade powerful actors in the field to adopt them as conventions. FCEs can thus be understood as loci for conventionalizing accounts. The theory of accounts and field-level change is illustrated with a case study of a turning point FCE during which competing institutional entrepreneurs in the field of ‘non-profit technology assistance providers’ present alternative accounts. Successful institutional entrepreneurship comes from recognizing political opportunities to align one's account with the dominant orders of worth in the field, thereby convincing powerful actors to accept one's account as convention.

Showdown at Kykuit: Field-Configuring Events as Loci for Conventionalizing Accounts

A growing body of research has emerged on “mixed-form” markets—markets for goods and services in which for-profit, nonprofit, and government providers coexist. This article seeks to understand the dynamics between nonprofit and for-profit organizations operating within the same market. The authors propose a five-step theoretical framework that includes both nonprofit and for-profit actors to capture what is fundamentally a temporal process: market identification; market growth; increasing cost for goods/services; increasing price for goods/services; and cross-sector competition. The authors use data from extended qualitative investigations in distinct service markets to analyze the unique contributions and capacities of each organizational form, and the transformation of market structure over time. The authors conclude that the dynamic interplay between nonprofit and for-profit forms within markets produces three possible outcomes: stratified, displaced, and defended markets.

The Nonprofit/For-Profit Continuum: Theorizing the Dynamics of Mixed-Form Markets

*† Although scholars have examined the different pathways to participation in social movements, far less research has looked at the endurance of activists once they mobilize. This article specifically explores the relationship between the pathways to mobilization and retention. Our data show that both social ties and individual motivations play a role in mobilizing participants of social movements. Contrary to what one might expect, we find that those activists who were mobilized with personal connections were less likely to be working for the organization a year later versus those who came to the organization as strangers. We find instead that self-starters— those canvassers who entered the canvass through their own volition—stayed on longer. Although those canvassers who came to the job through network ties were less likely to be working for the organization a year later, they were more likely to be engaged in other civic and political groups and they were more likely to be leaders of these groups. How do we understand social movement retention and in what ways is retention related to the pathways through which activists mobilize? Using data on a cohort of activists at one social movement organization, we assess the relationship between these two important and interrelated aspects of social movements. As will be spelled out in more detail in the sections that follow, although much research has explored the role of social ties in mobilization, very little research has looked at the role of social ties in the retention of activists (but see McAdam 1989; Downton and Wehr 1997; Sandell 1999). In addition, scholars have yet to study the ways that social ties, along with other pathways to mobilization, are related to the endurance of activists once they mobilize. Accordingly, this article explores how the pathways through which people become mobilized shape retention and ongoing involvement. Building on previous research, we identify and summarize two main pathways to mobilization: personal and/or organizational ties and selfstarters. Then, drawing on the limited scholarship on the relationship between mobilization and retention, we develop three propositions to clarify our expectations about how pathways shape retention and ongoing involvement. Our analysis is based on data collected from a cohort of young activists who worked as canvassers recruiting new members and renewing existing memberships for a number of progressive groups during the summer of 2003. The canvassers worked for one organization that is hired by these groups to raise money and awareness for them (see Fisher 2006a, 2006b). In the analysis, we explore the relationship between the ways the canvassers mobilized and their endurance at the organization. For those who left the canvass, we look at how their pathways to mobilization are related to their levels of civic engagement more broadly. In conclusion, we discuss how our results provide a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between how activists mobilize and their retention.

The Limits of Networks in Social Movement Retention: On Canvassers and their Careers

Many technologies in our everyday lives are expressions of deliberate and protracted political struggles among interested groups While some technologies are inherently political, other technologies become politicized through competition among different groups and organizations How do seemingly apolitical technologies become politicized? In this article, the author examines the case of the “circuit riders,” a progressive technology movement in the United States that promotes information technology use among nonprofit and grassroots organizations, to show how a particular technology is politicized through field-level interactions Applying and contributing to actor—network theory, the author finds that translation takes place as an organizational process by which actors associate the ideals of the technology in question with their political ideals and then attempt to enroll other actors to accept the resultant associations Successful association depends on both discursive and organizational practices

Technology Movements and the Politics of Free/Open Source Software

In From Social Movement to Moral Market, Paul-Brian McInerney explores what happens when a movement of activists gives way to a market for entrepreneurs. This book explains the transition by tracing the brief and colorful history of the Circuit Riders, a group of activists who sought to lead nonprofits across the digital divide. In a single decade, this movement spawned a market for technology assistance providers, dedicated to serving nonprofit organizations. In contrast to the Circuit Riders' grassroots approach, which was rooted in their commitment to a cause, these consultancies sprung up as social enterprises, blending the values of the nonprofit sector with the economic principles of for-profit businesses. Through a historical-institutional analysis, this narrative shows how the values of a movement remain intact even as entrepreneurs displace activists. While the Circuit Riders serve as a rich core example in the book, McInerney's findings speak to similar processes in other "moral markets," such as organic food, exploring how the evolution from movement to market impacts activists and enterprises alike.

Paul-Brian McInerney

Papers

Showdown at Kykuit: Field-Configuring Events as Loci for Conventionalizing Accounts

The Nonprofit/For-Profit Continuum: Theorizing the Dynamics of Mixed-Form Markets

The Limits of Networks in Social Movement Retention: On Canvassers and their Careers

Technology Movements and the Politics of Free/Open Source Software

From Social Movement to Moral Market: How the Circuit Riders Sparked an IT Revolution and Created a Technology Market