Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations
Social Movements and the Dynamics of Institutions and Organizations
复制标题
社会运动以及机构和组织的动力
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Lounsbury
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Marc Schneiberg;M. Lounsbury
如今，将代理、政治和争辩重新引入制度分析的呼声层出不穷。自迪马乔(DiMaggio，1988)的经典著作发表以来，这种呼声跨越了20多年。随着学者们努力解释制度的出现和变化，这一呼声变得越来越迫切。制度主义者在这些任务中面临着持续的困难。从关于同构、扩散或路径依赖的争论出发，他们经常援引特殊的解释，如外部冲击，以协调变化和路径创造与强调稳定性、连续性和一致性的背景来源的理论(Greenwood和Hinings，1996；Clemens和Cook，1999；Campbell，2004；Schneiberg，2005；Streeck和Thelen，2005)。为了解决这些困难，制度主义者已经开始修改他们对领域的概念和对行动的看法。从对代理的更结构化的方法来看，一些学者越来越多地认为领域由多个逻辑组成，或者由不确定性、模棱两可或矛盾组成，为行动打开了理论空间(Stryker 2000；Seo and Creed 2002；Lounsbury 2007；Schneiberg 2007；Fligstein and McAdam 2012；Padgett and Powell 2012；Thornton et al.2012年；Ocasio，Thornton and Lounsbury，本卷第19章；)其他学者更多地关注利益，将新的注意力带到了行为者和他们所做的事情上，对“制度企业家”(Beckert 1999；Hwang and Powell 2005；Hardy and McGuire 2008)和制度工作(Lawrence et al.)进行了研究。2013年)。在这种环境下，学者们还试图通过求助于社会运动理论和集体动员的研究来克服“过度的制度决定论”。社会运动理论横跨社会学和政治学，产生了大量关于变革的概念和研究，包括对20世纪60年代组织登记黑人选民的学生的研究(McAdam 1988)，动员农民、工人和妇女对国家提出要求(Clemens 1997)，争夺对公司的管理控制权的股东激进主义11
Calls for reintroducing agency, politics and contestation into institutional analysis are now legion, spanning more than two decades since DiMaggio’s (1988) classic piece, and gaining new urgency as scholars struggle to explain institutional emergence and change. Institutionalists face persistent difficulties in these tasks. Working from arguments about isomorphism, diffusion, or path dependence, they often invoke ad hoc explanations like exogenous shocks in order to reconcile change and path creation with theories that stress the contextual sources of stability, con tinuity and conformity (Greenwood and Hinings 1996; Clemens and Cook 1999; Campbell 2004; Schneiberg 2005; Streeck and Thelen 2005). To address these difficul ties, institutionalists have begun to revise both their conceptions of fields and their views of action. From a more structural approach to agency, some scholars increasingly view fields as comprised of multiple logics, or by indeterminacy, ambiguities or contradictions, opening theoretical spaces for action (Stryker 2000; Seo and Creed 2002; Lounsbury 2007; Schneiberg 2007; Fligstein and McAdam 2012; Padgett and Powell 2012; Thornton et al. 2012; Ocasio, Thornton and Lounsbury, Chapter 19 this volume;). Focusing more on interests, other scholars have brought new attention to actors and what they do, produc ing studies of ‘institutional entrepreneurs’ (Beckert 1999; Hwang and Powell 2005; Hardy and McGuire 2008) and institutional work (Lawrence et al. 2013). Within this milieu, scholars have also sought to overcome ‘excessive institutional determinism’ by turn ing to social movement theory and the study of collective mobilization. Spanning sociology and political science, social movement theory has produced a wealth of concepts and research on change, including studies of students organizing to register black voters in the 1960s (McAdam 1988), the mobilization of farmers, workers and women to make claims on the state (Clemens 1997), shareholder activism to contest managerial control over corporations 11