Questions related to Institutional Theory
if my research intends to use Malmi and Brown's management control package typology, should I use institutional theory or configurational theory to explain the underpinning theory of my work?
Cognitive pillar refer to those that determine the extent to which wider belief systems and cultural frames are imposed on or adopted by individual actors and organizations. And informal institutions also refer to cultural beliefs..
I am a PhD candidate in the field of Management. I am using the theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and the Institutional theory (IT) in my research on knowledge sharing.
I would like to get some advice on how to modify the constructs of these theories so that I can adapt and fit them to the context of my research.
Also, how do I choose the right variables to measure the different constructs under these theoretical lenses? In the literature, each author uses a different set of items to measure for instance attitude. Any useful help would be mostly appreciated.
In a research article related to green supply chain practices (GSCM) and their impact on environmental (EP) and financial performance (FP) of firms, I introduced contingent role of institutional pressures (IP), one of the reviewers raised a concern stating that the earlier part (GSCM-->EP-->FP) is (based on) practical framework and I'm proposing contingent effect of IP on the basis of theoretical framework (institutional theory). He/she asked me to explain 'why' I'm doing so. I'm wondering that how can I justify this because, besides a theoretical underpinnings, it seems that regulatory institutions also belong to 'practical (regulatory) framework. Seeking guidance.
Server theories are to used in developing the proposed model namely, Theory of Planned Behavior, Diffusion of Innovation Theory and Institutional Theory.
Please educate me regarding the appropriateness of these theories for the above research.
I am currently writing an essay discussing what we can learn from institutional theory in land-use planning research. I am most concerned with the sociological aspects of institutional theory, covering both planning processes its linkages to land-use planning outcomes. Do any of you have any considerations regarding the usefulness, or relevant articles using institutional theory to explore land-use planning?
Kristine Lien Skog
It strikes me as an interesting non-economic based entry point for understanding change. Any body cares to point me towards some readings?
We are leaning towards microlevel analysis in institutional theory (practice-based). However, macrolevel analysis could not be neglect. Do you think big data and data mining could help improve the understanding on institutional change?
In economic point of view, how to proceed if i'm interested to study the existing structure of an institutional system, to identify constraints, and improve efficiency? Any basic tools, methods in it?
Thanks in advance.
I'm interested in acquiring an understanding of institutional theoey. DiMaggio and Powell's book (The new institutionalism in organisational analysis) was published in 1991 and I'd like to find more recent introductions/overview.
I am finishing a paper about Knowledge management and I would like to describe Brazilian context in a systematic way. Looking for ideas.
Elizabeth Goodrick and Trish Reay (2011) wrote an interesting article where they investigated historical documents about the work of US pharmacists with the purpose of showing "how professional work can reflect multiple institutional logics" (p. 372). They used four logics as references: Professional, corporate, market, and state logics.
They measured the strength of each logic "by evaluating the extent to which the pharmacists’ practices as indicated in historical accounts were consistent with the practices implied by the ideal type of the logic." (p. 387). This means that the closeness of the actual work practices of the pharmacists in each historical era to the ideal type of each logic reflects the strength of each logic. To numerically evaluate this, they used a "standard scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates very low consistency (or similarity) and 5 indicates very high consistency (or similarity)" (p. 387).
Any other ideas on how to do this? Or are you aware of any other nice studies that have done this?
I'm wondering if anyone is aware of (well developed) measurement instruments on constructs that are derived from institutional theory. E.g., institution & legitimacy.
I am using critical discourse analysis and social relational institutional theory to interrogate a decison to sell parkland for housing sites under the guise of smart growth (i.e. more intensity).
When applying the thoughts of institutional theory, I know one established measurement of isomorphic behavior in the banking industry is based on the similarity between firms' asset allocation. But what about other kinds of firms, it there any valid measurement in the literature? Cheers
The theory should be relevant to less developed countries in Africa especially in Tanzania environment where market forces are not much advanced and corporate governance is at infancy stage.
I am trying to understand how to fit governance into the framework of the new institutionalism. I suspect that governance is a process that connect actors with structures, helping actors to modify the structures while structures shape the behaviour of the actos. But it this is true, is governance just the same as "institutional work"?
Fair Trade would suggest that if inequality and exploitation exist in the Fair Trade supply chain, it would be experienced by the most marginalized actors.
I need to investigate "Fair Trade and the Living Wage in Sri Lanka: An investigation into the processes and practices of fairness"
For that I need to combine subject matter to a detailed theorisation of how this process of living wage might occur with the view of stakeholders.
I am a novice researcher doing research on the challenges and impacts of Enterprise Architecture and IT Governance implementations within the context of state-owned enterprise (SOEs).
I am contemplating on an exploratory multiple case studies approach, about 4 cases at least using the Technology Organization Environment framework.
The aim is to do an inductive study that will develop or build theories using the guidelines of Grounded Theory. I will use the EA and IT Gov frameworks to shed light in the technology context, Institutional theory for the organizational context and Contingency Theory for the environmental context.
I would like some opinions on this from those who have done similar studies or anyone who understands these concepts.
I have been utilising in-vivo codes on various established definitions in two fields of study in order to determine if theories derived from the code analysis can be grouped into the two fields of studies. What has emerged is 141 codes that have been grouped into 11 logical categories.
These categories can be linked to some prominent theories such as System Theory and Institution Theory but others cannot.
I need assistance with:
- Are there any principles in linking coding outputs to established theories?
- Are there any principles in handling code categories that do not logically link to established theories?
I'm working on a project on interlocking directorates and ownership networks and collusion. I would like to know business cases in which interlocking directorates or share ownership are used to collude. Also, please let me know about papers or any other document related to this subject.
I am currently doing research on the influence of institutional pressures on organisational behaviour. I am using Oliver's (1991, Strategic responses to institutional processes) model (see attachment part 1) with institutional antecedents to estimate the probable level of organisational resistance to institutional pressures in their environment. I will be asking respondent to score the 10 antecedents (low, moderate or high) in order to determine their probable response to these institutional pressures.
My aim is to create a composite variable out of the respondents scores on the antecedents in order to determine their level of expected resistance leading to a "resistance score" (score would be a 5 level scale with non-integer value, between level 1 (theoretical minimum, being low expected organisational resistance) and level 5 (theoretical maximum, being high expected organisational resistance).
In order to do this I calculated the probability of a response strategy's occurrence (see attachment part 2). For example, when "legitimacy" is low, the probable response would be 25% chance on "compromise", 25% chance on "avoid", 25% chance on "defy" and 25% chance on" manipulate". However, when "legitimacy" is high, the probable response would be 100% chance on "acquiesce".
Then I compensated for Oliver's model skewness (see attachment part 3) in order to equalise the probability of occurrence of the different response strategies . For example, the combined score of all the antecedents for the "acquiesce" score is 7,83333, whereas the combined score of all the antecedents for the "compromise" response is 4,58333. This means that Oliver's model is more likely to result in a "acquiesce" than a "compromise" response strategy. To compensate for that I divided all the scores in the "acquiesce" column by 7,8333, the scores in the "compromise" column by 4,58333, etc. This leads to an equal probability of all response strategies to occur.
Then, to calculate a respondents likely response strategy (i.e. level of resistance), I multiplied the probability for the scores of the institutional antecedents with the score of the column. For example, when a respondent would say "legitimacy" is high, then I would multiply 1 (for the "acquiesce" column) with 0,12765963 (the corresponding value for the "legitimacy" indicator). However, if a respondent would say "legitimacy" is low, then I would multiply 2 (for "compromise") x 0,05454549 adding (+) 3 (for "avoid") x 0,0461539 adding (+) 4 (for "defy") x 0,06122454 adding (+) 5 (for "manipulate")x 0,06122454. This would lead to the score for the institutional antecedent "legitimacy". I would repeat the process for all 10 institutional antecedents, adding them all up, leading to a total score.
However, this total score, and thereby my methodology, is incorrect, as it can become higher than my theoretical maximum score of 5 (level of resistance). I know I am doing something wrong, I just can't figure out what. Is there anyone who has some insights to share on the method I am using or the aim I'm trying to attain?
Furthermore, I would like to automate the process as I will be getting scores from a lot of respondents. Is there any way to create this composite variable with the help of (preferably) SPSS or Excel?
If there is anything not clear in my explanation, please feel free to ask.
There has recently been great interest in integrating emotions into institutional theory and social theory more generally, providing a counterweight to the growing emphasis on cool cognition over the past couple of decades. How can we do this? What are important kinds of questions? How can we study it methodologically?
I think competition is an under theorized concept. Would you have suggestion for good readings or suggestions for approaching competition on knowledge, legitimacy, or authority?