Trends and oportunities in institutional logics: a study based on bibliographic coupling
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5585/riae.v19i1.13926Keywords:
Institutional theory, Institutional logics, Bibliographic coupling.Abstract
Objective: Analyzing, through bibliographic coupling, possibilities and opportunities of future studies in institutional logics, highlighting opportunities for strategy and organization area.
Methodology/Approach: This is a bibliometric study which analyzes the production in institutional logics through the technique of bibliographic coupling.
Originality/Relevance: Institutional logics are a recent development of neo-institutionalism and offer an opportunity for studies indicating the main possibilities for contribution both in the theme of the institutional logics itself, and in the relationship with strategy.
Main Results: Due to the maturity of the neo-institutional theory the institutional logics are , in a way, a cohesive path. However, unlike neo-institutionalism, it presents itself as an option based on institutional theory to explain changes and innovations, which are important subjects to strategy.
Theoretical/Methodological Contributions: This paper presents three contributions: a) it indicates which themes within the field are more mature, such as institutional complexity, and which are emerging, such as hybridization and categorization as an element of institutional change: b) it shows that the studies in strategy are more related to institutional logics, such as the theory of upper echelon and the decision making; and c) it indicates other possibilities, from following the alignment of identity and its reflection on the performance of the organization to consider the institutional logics as elements that may guide the decision making process of organizations, including the point of view of strategy as practice. Finally, regarding method, this work contributes to the use of techniques of bibliographic coupling.
Downloads
References
Almandoz, J. (2014). Founding Teams as Carriers of Competing Logics: When Institutional Forces Predict Banks’ Risk Exposure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3), 442–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214537810
Archambault, É., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2009). Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(7), 1320-1326. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21062
Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T., & Norrie, A. (1998). Critical Realism: Essential Readings. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1163/156920601794750701
Ashraf, N., Ahmadsimab, A., & Pinkse, J. (2017). From Animosity to Affinity: The Interplay of Competing Logics and Interdependence in Cross-Sector Partnerships. Journal of Management Studies, 54(6), 793–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12273
Bascle, G. (2016). Toward a Dynamic Theory of Intermediate Conformity. Journal of Management Studies, 53(2), 131–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12155
Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. (2012). Change agents, networks, and institutions: A contingency theory of organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 381–398. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0891
Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520903053598
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing – Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.893615
Bednar, M. K. (2012). Watchdog or Lapdog? A Behavioral View of the Media as a Corporate Governance Mechanism. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0862
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
Bergman, E. M. L. (2012). Finding citations to social work literature: The relative benefits of using Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(6), 370-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.08.002
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431
Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2015). The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 49–75. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0318
Boxenbaum, E., & Jonsson, S. (2008). Isomorphism, diffusion and decoupling. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 78–98). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012). From Smoke and Mirrors to Walking the Talk: Decoupling in the Contemporary World. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2012.684462
Carlsson-Wall, M., Kraus, K., & Messner, M. (2016). Performance measurement systems and the enactment of different institutional logics: Insights from a football organization. Management Accounting Research, 32, 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.01.006
Christensen, C. M. (1997). Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
Cloutier, C., & Langley, A. (2013). The Logic of Institutional Logics: Insights From French Pragmatist Sociology. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(4), 360–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492612469057
Currie, G., & Spyridonidis, D. (2016). Interpretation of Multiple Institutional Logics on the Ground: Actors Position, their Agency and Situational Constraints in Professionalized Contexts. Organization Studies, 37(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615604503
Dalpiaz, E., Rindova, V., & Ravasi, D. (2016). Combining Logics to Transform Organizational Agency. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3), 347–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216636103
Delbridge, R., & Edwards, T. (2013). Inhabiting institutions: Critical realist refinements to understanding institutional complexity and change. Organization Studies, 34(7), 927–947. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613483805
Dimaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional Logics and Institutional Pluralism: The Contestation of Care and Science Logics in Medical Education, 1967–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 114–149. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.1.114
Durand, R., & Jourdan, J. (2012). Jules or Jim: Alternative conformity to minority logics. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1295–1315. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0345
Edman, J. (2016). Cultivating Foreignness: How Organizations Maintain and Leverage Minority Identities. Journal of Management Studies, 53(1), 55–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12129
Fan, G. H., & Zietsma, C. (2017). Constructing a Shared Governance Logic: The Role of Emotions in Enabling Dually Embedded Agency. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2321–2351. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0402
Fisher, G., Kotha, S., & Lahiri, A. (2016). Changing with the Times: An Integrated View of Legitimacy and New Venture Life Cycles. Academy of Management Review, 41(3), 383–409. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0496
Fleetwood, S. (2014). Bhaskar and critical realism. In P. Adler, P. du Gay, G. Morgan, & M. Reed (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Sociology, Social Theory and Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organization Analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structure. Berkeley.
Glanzel, W., & Czerwon, H. J. (1996). A new methodological approach to bibliographic coupling and its application to the national, regional and institutional level. Scientometrics, 37(2), 195–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02093621
Greenwood, R., Diaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The Multiplicity of Institutional Logics and the Heterogeneity of Organizational Responses. Organization Science, 21(2), 521–539. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0453
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding Radical Organizational Change: Bringing together the Old and the New Institutionalism. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022. https://doi.org/10.2307/259163
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.590299
Greve, H. R., & Zhang, C. M. (2017). Institutional Logics and Power Sources: Merger and Acquisition Decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 671–694. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0698
Haveman, H. a. (1993). Follow the Leader: Mimetic Isomorphism and Entry Into New Markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 593. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393338
Jansson, A. (2013). “Real Owners” and “Common Investors”: Institutional Logics and the Media as a Governance Mechanism. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2012.00932.x
Jarneving, B. (2007). Bibliographic coupling and its application to research-front and other core documents. Journal of Informetrics, 1(4), 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.07.004
Jaskiewicz, P., Heinrichs, K., Rau, S. B., & Reay, T. (2016). To Be or Not to Be: How Family Firms Manage Family and Commercial Logics in Succession. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(4), 781–813. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12146
Jay, J. (2013). Navigating Paradox as a Mechanism of Change and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0772
Joseph, J., Ocasio, W., & McDonnell, M.-H. (2014). The Structural Elaboration of Board Independence: Executive Power, Institutional Logics, and the Adoption of CEO-only Board Structures in US Corporate Governance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1834–1858. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0253
Kim, T.-Y., Shin, D., Oh, H., & Jeong, Y.-C. (2007). Inside the Iron Cage: Organizational Political Dynamics and Institutional Changes in Presidential Selection Systems in Korean Universities, 1985–2002. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(2), 286–323. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.2.286
Kodeih, F., & Greenwood, R. (2014). Responding to Institutional Complexity: The Role of Identity. Organization Studies, 35(1), 7–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613495333
Koskela-Huotari, K., Edvardsson, B., Jonas, J. M., Sörhammar, D., & Witell, L. (2016). Innovation in service ecosystems-Breaking, making, and maintaining institutionalized rules of resource integration. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2964–2971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.029
Lampel, J., Bhalla, A., & Ramachandran, K. (2017). Family values and inter-institutional governance of strategic decision making in Indian family firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(4), 901–930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-017-9509-0
Leca, B., & Naccache, P. (2006). A Critical Realist Approach To Institutional Entrepreneurship. Organization, 13(5), 627–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508406067007
Lee, M.-D. P., & Lounsbury, M. (2015). Filtering Institutional Logics: Community Logic Variation and Differential Responses to the Institutional Complexity of Toxic Waste. Organization Science, 26(3), 847–866. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0959
Loewenstein, J., Ocasio, W., & Jones, C. (2012). Vocabularies and Vocabulary Structure: A New Approach Linking Categories, Practices, and Institutions. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 41–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2012.660763
Lounsbury, M. (2007). A Tale of Two Cities: Competing Logics and Practice Variation in the Professionalizing of Mutual Funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634436
Malsch, B., & Gendron, Y. (2013). Re-theorizing change: Institutional experimentation and the struggle for domination in the field of public accounting. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 870–899. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12006
Manual, O. (2005). The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Proposed Guidelines for Collecting an Interpreting Technological Innovation Data.
Martí, G. (2017). New Concepts for New Dynamics: Generating Theory for the Study of Religious Innovation and Social Change. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 56(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12325
Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a multidisciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 116(3), 2175-2188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2820-9
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.2307/2778293
Meyer, R. E., & Höllerer, M. A. (2016). Laying a smoke screen: Ambiguity and neutralization as strategic responses to intra-institutional complexity. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 373–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127016633335
Misangyi, V. F. (2016). Institutional complexity and the meaning of loose coupling: Connecting institutional sayings and (not) doings. Strategic Organization, 1476127016635481-. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127016635481
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
Nash, A. (1974). Local 1199, Drug and Hospital Union: An Analysis of the Normative and Institutional Orders of a Complex Organization. Human Relations, 27(6), 547–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677402700602
Ocasio, W., & Radoynovska, N. (2016). Strategy and commitments to institutional logics: Organizational heterogeneity in business models and governance. Strategic Organization, 1476127015625040-. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127015625040
Ocasio, William, Loewenstein, J., & Nigam, A. (2015). How Streams of Communication Reproduce and Change Institutional Logics: The Role of Categories. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 28–48. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0274
OECD and SCImago Research Group (CSIC). (2016). Compendium of Bibliometric Science Indicators. OECD, Paris.
Quevedo-Silva, F., Santos, E. B. A., Brandão, M. M., & Vils, L. (2016). Estudo bibliométrico: orientações sobre sua aplicação. Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 15(2), 246-262. https://doi.org/10.5585/remark.v15i2.3274
Pahnke, E. C., Katila, R., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2015). Who Takes You to the Dance? How Partners’ Institutional Logics Influence Innovation in Young Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(4), 596–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839215592913
Patriotta, G., Gond, J.-P., & Schultz, F. (2011). Maintaining Legitimacy: Controversies, Orders of Worth, and Public Justifications. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1804–1836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00990.x
Person, O., Danell, R., & Schneider, J. W. (2009). How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. In F. Åström, R. Danell, B. Larsen, & J. W. Schneider (Eds.), Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th Birthday (pp. 9–24). Leuven: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics.
Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003). Institutional Change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle Cuisine as an Identity Movement in French Gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology, 108(4), 795–843.
Ratinaud, P., & Marchand, P. (2012). No TiApplication de la méthode ALCESTE à de “gros” corpus et stabilité des “mondes lexicaux”: analyse du “CableGate” avec IRaMuTeQtle. Actes Des 11eme Journées Internationales d’Analyse Statistique Des Données Textuelles, 835–844.
Reay, T., Jaskiewicz, P., & Hinings, C. R. (2015). How Family, Business, and Community Logics Shape Family Firm Behavior and “Rules of the Game” in an Organizational Field. Family Business Review, 28(4), 292–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486515577513
Reay, Trish, & Hinings, C. R. R. (2009). Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609104803
Reed, M. I. (2009). Critical Realism: Philosophy, Method, or Philosophy in Search of a Method? In D. A. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods (pp. 430–448). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Reinert, M. (1990). Alceste une méthodologie d’analyse des données textuelles et une application: Aurelia De Gerard De Nerval. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 26(1), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/075910639002600103
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities (4a). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the Grass Roots - A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization. University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Selznick, P. (1996). Institutionalism “Old” and “New.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 270–277. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393719
Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance Trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing Conflicting-yet-Complementary Logics in Practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 932–970. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0638
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
Thijs, B., Zhang, L., & Glänzel, W. (2015). Bibliographic coupling and hierarchical clustering for the validation and improvement of subject-classification schemes. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1453–1467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1641-3
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958– 1990 1. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843. https://doi.org/10.1086/210361
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional Logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 99–129). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Vickers, I., Lyon, F., Sepulveda, L., & McMullin, C. (2017). Public service innovation and multiple institutional logics: The case of hybrid social enterprise providers of health and wellbeing. Research Policy, 46(10), 1755–1768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.08.003
Vogel, R., & Güttel, W. H. (2013). The dynamic capability view in strategic management: A bibliometric review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4), 426–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12000
Westphal, J. D., & Park, S. H. (2012). Unintended agency: Impression management support as a trigger of institutional change in corporate governance. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.10.002
Wry, T., & York, J. G. (2017). An Identity-Based Approach to Social Enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 437–460. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0506
York, J. G., Hargrave, T. J., & Pacheco, D. F. (2016). Converging winds: Logic hybridization in the Colorado wind energy field. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 579–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0657
York, J. G., O’Neil, I., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2016). Exploring Environmental Entrepreneurship: Identity Coupling, Venture Goals, and Stakeholder Incentives. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 695–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12198
Zanin, L. M., Nassif, V. M. J., Cunha, J. A. C. da, & Pedron, C. D. (2015). Aqueles Que Mudam as Regras do Jogo: uma Revisão Sistemática sobre o Empreendedorismo Institucional. In VII Encontro de Estudos em Estratégia 3Es. Brasilia.
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Iberoamerican Journal of Strategic Management
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The author (s) authorize the publication of the manuscript in the journal;
The author (s) guarantee that the contribution is original and unpublished and that it is not being evaluated in another journal (s);
The journal is not responsible for the opinions, ideas and concepts emitted in the texts, as they are the sole responsibility of its author (s);
Editors reserve the right to make textual adjustments and adapt to the publication's rules.
Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right to first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License - 4.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) that allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this magazine.
Authors are authorized to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (eg, publishing in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (eg in institutional repositories or on their personal page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes, as well as increase impact and citation of the published work (see “The Effect of Open Access” at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html).
Authors can use ORCID for identification. An ORCID identifier is unique to an individual and acts as a persistent digital identifier to ensure that authors (particularly those with relatively common names) can be distinguished and their work appropriately assigned.
