Advertisement

Wie geht es weiter mit dem soziologischen Neo-Institutionalismus?

Eine kritische Auseinandersetzung
  • Stefan Kirchner
  • Anne K. Krüger
  • Frank Meier
  • Uli Meyer
Chapter
Part of the Organisationssoziologie book series (ORGANISAT)

Zusammenfassung

Der soziologische Neo-Institutionalismus gehört in der Organisationsforschung zu den derzeit dominierenden Theorien. Diese Theorie hat mit ihren Begriffen und Konzepten viele empirische und theoretische Projekte der Organisationsforschung angetrieben. Trotzdem werden erhebliche Baustellen sichtbar, die es zu bearbeiten gilt. Dieser Beitrag stellt die grundlegenden Theoriebausteine kurz vor, greift aktuelle Weiterentwicklungen auf und identifiziert die Kernprobleme der Theorie auf drei analytischen Ebenen, der Mikro-, der Meso- und der Makroebene. Dabei wird deutlich, dass es diese Probleme konstruktiv anzugehen gilt, um die bislang ungenutzten Potentiale des soziologischen Neo-Institutionalismus freizulegen.

Keywords:

Soziologischer Neo-Institutionalismus Theorieentwicklung empirische Forschung 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Ahrne, G., & Brunsson, N. (2011). Organization outside organizations: the signifi cance of partial organization. Organization Science, 18(1), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, H. E. (2011). Heroes, Villains, and Fools: Institutional Entrepreneurship, NOT Institutional Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 1(2), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckert, J. (1999). Agency, Entrepreneurs, and Institutional Change. The Role of Strategic Choice and Institutionalized Practices in Organizations. Organization Studies, 20(5), 777–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckert, J. (2010). How do fi elds change? The Interrelations of Institutions, Networks, and Cognition in the Dynamics of Markets. Organization Studies, 31(5), 605–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travel of Ideas. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevón (Hrsg.), Translating Organizational Change (S. 13–48). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dacin, T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional Theory and Institutional Change: Introduction to the Special Research Forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, G. F. (2010). Do theories of organizations progress? Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 690–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Hrsg.), Institutional patterns and organizations. Culture and environment (S. 3–21). Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  9. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fi elds. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Hrsg.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (S. 1–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Edelman, L. B., Uggen, C., & Erlanger, H. S. (1999). The endogeneity of legal regulation: Grievance precedures as rational myth. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 406–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emirbayer, M., & Johnson, V. (2008). Bourdieu and organizational analysis. Theory and Society, 37(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2011). Toward a General Theory of Strategic Action Fields. Sociological Theory, 29(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fi elds. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing Society Back in: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Hrsg.), The New institutionalism in organizational analysis (S. 232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Hrsg.). (2008). The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2008). Institutional Entrepreneurship. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Hrsg.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (S. 198–218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hasse, R., & Krücken, G. (1999). Neo-Institutionalismus. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional Evolution and Change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hwang, H., & Colyvas, J. A. (2011). Problematizing Actors and Institutions in Institutional Work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 62–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. King, B. G., Felin, T., & Whetten, D. A. (2010). Finding the Organization in Organizational Theory: A Meta-Theory of the Organization as a Social Actor. Organization Science, 21(1), 290–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirchner, S. (2012). Wer sind wir als Organisation? Organisationsidentität zwischen Neo- Institutionalismus und Pfadabhängigkeit (Campus Forschung). Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Kirchner, S. (2014). Organisationsidentität und Unsicherheit. In M. Apelt & K. Senge (Hrsg.), Organisation und Unsicherheit (S. 69–86). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  25. Krücken, G., & Drori, G. S. (Hrsg.). (2009). World Society: The Writings of John W. Meyer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Hrsg.), The Sage handbook of organization studies. Second Edition (S. 215–254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Institutional work: actors and agency in institutional studies of organization. Cambridge; NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leblebici, H., Salancik, G. R., Copay, A., & King, T. (1991). Institutional Change and the Transformation of Interorganizational Fields – an Organizational History of the United- States Radio Broadcasting Industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 333–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meier, F. (2011). Die Akteure des soziologischen Neo-Institutionalismus. In N. Lüdtke & H. Matsuzaki (Hrsg.), Akteur – Individuum – Subjekt. Fragen zu ‚Personalität‘ und ‚Sozialität‘ (S. 199–218). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meier, F. (2012). Hybridization and the order of institutional orders. Conference Paper: 28th EGOS Colloquium: Design!? Helsinki, July 5–7, 2012.Google Scholar
  32. Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structures as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meyer, J. W. (2005). Weltkultur: wie die westlichen Prinzipien die Welt durchdringen. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., & Thomas, G. M. (1994). Ontology and Rationalization in the Western Cultural Account. In J. W. M. W. Richard Scott (Hrsg.), Institutional Environments and Organizations. Structural Complexity and Indiviudalism (S. 9–27). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., & Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World society and the nation state. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 144–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., & Ramirez, F. O. (2005). Die Weltgesellschaft und der Nationalstaat. In J. W. Meyer (Hrsg.), Weltkultur. Wie die westlichen Prinzipien die Welt durchdringen (S. 85–132). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
  37. Meyer, J. W., & Jepperson, R. L. (2000). The ‘actors’ of modern society: The cultural construction of social agency. Sociological Theory, 18(1), 100–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meyer, J. W., Ramirez, F. O., Frank, D. J., & Schofer, E. (2006). Higher Education as an Institution. CDDRL Working Papers. Stanford: Stanford University. 57.Google Scholar
  39. Meyer, R. E. (2008). New Sociology of Knowledge. Historical Legacy and Contributions to Current debates in Institutional Research. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Hrsg.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (S. 519–536). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Powell, W. W. (1991). Expanding the Scope of Institutional Analysis. In W. W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Hrsg.), The New institutionalism in organizational analysis (S. 183–203). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. A. (2008). Microfoundations of Institutional Theory. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin-Andersson, & R. Suddaby (Hrsg.), Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (S. 276–298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The New institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ramirez, F. O., & Meyer, J. W. (2002). Expansion and Impact of the World Human Rights Regime. Longitudinal and Cross-National Analyses Over the Twentieth Century. Stanford University. Stanford: Stanford University. Abgerufen von www.stanford.edu/group/csw/hr_proposal2002.doc Google Scholar
  44. Reay, T., & Hining, C. R. (2005). The Recomposition of an Organizational Field: Health Care in Alberta. Organization Studies, 26(3), 351–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reay, T., & Hining, C. R. (2009). Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication s.Google Scholar
  47. Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: ideas and interests. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  48. Senge, K., & Hellmann, K.-U. (2006). Einführung in den Neo-Institutionalismus. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  49. 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. The American Journal of Sociology, 105(5), 801–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional Logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Hrsg.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (S. 99–129). Los Angeles; London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: a new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Walgenbach, P., & Meyer, R. E. (2008). Neoinstitutionalistische Organisationstheorie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag.Google Scholar
  53. Weik, E. (2011). Institutional Entrepreneurship and Agency. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 41(4), 466–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wooten, M. E., & Hoffman, A. (2008). Organizational Fields: Past, Present and Future of a Core Construct. In C. O. & R. S. Royston Greenwood (Hrsg.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (S. 130–147). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  55. Zucker, L. G. (1977). The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence. American Sociological Review, 42(5), 726–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Kirchner
    • 1
  • Anne K. Krüger
    • 2
  • Frank Meier
    • 3
  • Uli Meyer
    • 3
  1. 1.HamburgDeutschland
  2. 2.BerlinDeutschland
  3. 3.BremenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations