权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Legitimation of consultancy in different institutional contexts: A comparative analysis in business, administration and science

不同制度背景下咨询的合法性：商业、管理和科学的比较分析

基本信息

批准号：
257728545
负责人：
Professor Dr. Georg Krücken
金额：
--
依托单位：
International Center for Higher Education Research (INCHER)
依托单位国家：
德国
项目类别：
Research Grants
财政年份：
2014
资助国家：
德国
起止时间：
2013-12-31 至 2018-12-31
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/257728545?language=en
关键词：
Legitimation consultancy different institutional contexts

项目摘要

Due to the growing socio-economic relevance of knowledge and knowledge work, management consultancy has become a wide-spread phenomenon not only in the business sector, but also in public administration and in organizations belonging to the scientific field. In these fields the forms and degrees of legitimation, however, vary. Research on management consultancy so far has focused on the legitimation granted through consultancy. For instance external consultancy was mainly analyzed as a resource of legitimation for organizations. Much less attention has been devoted to the legitimation of management consultancy, i.e., the conditions of legitimation of consultancy itself. With this focus, our research project aims at theoretically and empirically coming to terms with the legitimation of consultants. We focus in particular on processes of legitimation on different social levels and on the interplay of these processes in the constitution of the consultant as a legitimate social actor. Which processes can be analyzed at the micro-level of interactions and at the organizational meso-level and how are they interrelated with regard to the constitution of actors? How do these processes of legitimation at the project and the organizational level refer to the macro-level of different institutional logics in business, administration and academia? In addition, how do processes of legitimation differ with regard to the type of consultancy? These questions will be addressed in a qualitative research design with two case studies in each of the three different institutional contexts, where consultancy takes place. To a large extent, theoretical foundations come from the new institutionalism in organizational analysis.With this, we conduct the first scientific comparative study on the legitimation of management consultancy while taking into account the institutional logics of different contexts of consultancy. This research is important for a variety of reasons. First, research on management consultancy will benefit from our project as we develop a theoretical model in which the multi-layered processes of legitimation between micro-, meso- and macro-levels are analyzed. Furthermore different sectors, in which management consultancy plays a role, are analyzed for the first time in a systematic and comparative perspective. Second, our research has implications for the new institutionalism in organizational analysis. We integrate processes of legitimation at different levels into a comprehensive approach to analyze the constitution of actors; this is of paramount importance for the micro-foundation of the new institutionalism. Third, we contribute to comparative research on organizations. Similarities and differences concerning organizational reactions to the interventions of external consultants adavnce our knowledge on the nature of different types of organizations.

由于知识和知识工作的社会经济相关性越来越大，管理咨询不仅在商业部门，而且在公共行政部门和属于科学领域的组织中已成为一种广泛存在的现象。然而，在这些领域，合法化的形式和程度各不相同。到目前为止，对管理咨询的研究主要集中在通过咨询所赋予的合法性。例如，外部咨询主要被分析为组织合法化的来源。对管理咨询合法化的关注要少得多，即咨询本身合法化的条件。有了这一重点，我们的研究项目旨在从理论和经验上接受咨询师的合法化。我们特别侧重于不同社会层面的合法化进程，以及这些进程在顾问作为合法社会行为者的构成中的相互作用。哪些进程可以在互动的微观层面和组织的中观层面进行分析，它们在行为者构成方面是如何相互关联的？这些在项目和组织层面的合法化过程如何指的是商业、行政和学术界不同制度逻辑的宏观层面？此外，在咨询类型方面，合法化进程有何不同？这些问题将在进行咨询的三个不同机构背景下分别用两个案例研究的定性研究设计加以解决。在很大程度上，理论基础来自于组织分析中的新制度主义。在此基础上，我们首次对管理咨询合法化进行了科学的比较研究，同时考虑了不同咨询情境的制度逻辑。这项研究之所以重要，原因有很多。首先，管理咨询的研究将受益于我们的项目，因为我们开发了一个理论模型，在这个模型中，我们分析了微观、中观和宏观层面之间的多层次合法化过程。此外，还首次从系统和比较的角度对管理咨询发挥作用的不同部门进行了分析。第二，我们的研究对组织分析中的新制度主义具有启示意义。我们将不同层次的合法化进程纳入一种全面的方法来分析行为者的构成；这对新制度主义的微观基础至关重要。第三，我们致力于组织的比较研究。关于组织对外部顾问干预的反应的相似和不同使我们了解不同类型组织的性质。