nach oben

Erschienen in:

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

9. Material Conflict: MOOCs and Institutional Logics in Business Education

verfasst von : Anna Morgan-Thomas, Agostinho Abrunhosa, J. Ignacio Canales

Erschienen in: Materiality in Institutions

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Although the notion of incompatibility is implicit in the research on conflicting institutional logics, few studies explicitly address it. The chapter draws on the concept of materiality and theories of digital objects to explain how materiality affects the organizational templates and reasons for the conflict. The chosen context of Massive Open Online Course (MOOCS) contradicts the conventional organizing templates in business schools (BS) but it emerges a powerful force regardless. The focus on digital materiality helps us to elaborate the role of materiality in institutional logics. By juxtaposing and reconciling the substance of the physical mater and the substantive mattering of matter, the chapter enhances the definition and the theoretical boundaries of the concept.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Websites and the Discursive Legitimation of New Ventures: Embracing Conformity and Distinctiveness

Nächstes Kapitel Bridging the Gap Between Organizational Institutionalism and Situated Action: A Video-Based Analysis of a Simulation-Based Device in Healthcare

In Chap. 5, Lise Arena and Ali Douai offer a complementary perspective on competing logics in Business Education. They explore the emergence of co-existing but competing logics through the history of Oxford University campus and the building of Saïd Business School. Through their investigation of space, they show how materiality fosters the hybridization of seemingly orthogonal institutional logics. That said, Chap. 5 explores institutional changes on a much longer time horizon, for example, several decades.

Chapter 1—introduction—provides additional detail about the debate on the porosity of the different kinds of materiality, in particular objects and digitality. Besides, digitality being dependent on physical artifacts implies that information is not only shared in digital spaces and platforms but also accessible through multiple, mobile devices. Such porosity thereby sophisticates the transferability of materiality. In the postface of the book, Candace Jones provides insightful discussion on the transferability of materiality.

Other proposals for materiality re-conceptualization can be found in this book. In Chap. 12, François-Xavier de Vaujany identifies three ontological avenues of legitimacy, including the ontology of sculpture and the ontology of bubbles. In the postface, Candace Jones proposes to view materiality as a carrier or through its performative role.

Alford, R. R., & Friedland, R. (1985). Powers of theory: Capitalism, the state, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Anderson, J. Q. (2015). Individualisation of higher education: How technological evolution can revolutionise opportunities for teaching and learning. International Social Science Journal, 64(212–214), 305–316.

Ansari, S., Wijen, F., & Gray, B. (2013). Constructing a climate change logic: An institutional perspective on the “tragedy of the commons”. Organization Science, 24, 1014–1040.CrossRef

Antunes, D., & Thomas, H. (2007). The competitive (dis)advantages of European Business Schools. Long Range Planning, 40(3), 382–404.CrossRef

Batista, M. G., Clegg, S., Cunha, M. P., Giustiniano, L., & Rego, A. (2015). Improvising prescription: Evidence from the emergency room. British Journal of Management, 27(2), 406–425.CrossRef

Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1419–1440.CrossRef

Boland, R. J., Jr., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2007). Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organizational Science, 18(4), 631–647.CrossRef

Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX’s first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8(March), 13–25.

Chia, R., & Holt, R. (2014). The nature of knowledge in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(4), 471–486.CrossRef

Crainer, S., & Dearlove, D. (1999). Gravy training: Inside the business of business schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of interactive Media in education, 3. Available online: https://jime.open.ac.uk/articles/10.5334/2012-18/

D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197–230.CrossRef

Dellarocas, C., & Van Alstyne, M. (2013). Money models for MOOCs. Communications of the ACM, 56(8), 25–28.CrossRef

Ekbia, H. R. (2009). Digital artifacts as quasi-objects: Qualification, mediation, and materiality. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(12), 2554–2566.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2009). On the identity of technological objects and user innovations in function. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 442–462.CrossRef

Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2013). Technological objects, social positions and the transformational model of social activity. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 37(3), 803–818.CrossRef

Fincham, R., & Forbes, T. (2015). Three’s a crowd: The role of inter-logic relationships in highly complex institutional fields. British Journal of Management, 26(4), 657–670.CrossRef

Finkle, T. A., & Masters, E. (2014). Do MOOCs pose a threat to higher education? Research in Higher Education Journal, 26(1), 1–10.

Firmin, R., Schiorring, E., Whitmer, J., Willett, T., Collins, E. D., & Sujitparapitaya, S. (2014). Case study: Using MOOCs for conventional college coursework. Distance Education, 35(2), 178–201.CrossRef

Friedland, R. (2013). God, love and other good reasons for practice: Thinking through institutional logics. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39A, 25–50.

Friedland, R., & Alford, R. B. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–266). Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Fournier, H., Kop, R., & Durand, G. (2014). Challenges to research in MOOCs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 1–15.

Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Glynn, M. A. (2000). When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 11(3), 285–298.CrossRef

Goodrick, E., & Salancik, G. R. (1996). Organizational discretion in responding to institutional practices: Hospitals and caesarean births. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 1–28.CrossRef

Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. (1959). Higher education for business. The Journal of Business Education, 35(3), 115–117.CrossRef

Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 317–371.CrossRef

Hargadon, D. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476–501.CrossRef

Hay, M. (2008). Business schools: A new sense of purpose. Journal of Management Development, 27(4), 371–378.CrossRef

Hinings, B., Gegenhuberb, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28, 52–61.CrossRef

Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). Why do institutions offer MOOCs? Online Learning, 18(3), 1–15.CrossRef

Hugstad, P. S. (1983). The business school in the 1980s: Liberalism versus vocationalism. New York: Preager.

Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.CrossRef

Jones, C., & Massa, F. G. (2013). From novel practice to consecrated exemplar: Unity Temple as a case of institutional evangelizing. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1099–1136.

Jones, C., Maoret, M., Massa, F. G., & Svejenova, S. (2012). Rebels with a cause: Formation, contestation, and expansion of the de novo category “modern architecture,” 1870–1975. Organization Science, 23, 1523–1545.CrossRef

Jones, C., Boxenbaum, E., & Callen, A. (2013). The immaterial of the material in institutional logics. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39A, 51–75.CrossRef

Kallinikos, J. (2009). On the computational rendition of reality: Artifacts and human agency. Organization, 16(92), 183–202.

Kallinikos, J., & Mariátegui, J.-C. (2011). Video as digital object: Production and distribution of video content in the internet media ecosystem. The Information Society: An International Journal, 27(5), 281–294.CrossRef

Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2013). The ambivalent ontology of digital artifacts. Information Systems Quarterly, 37(2), 357–370.

Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 243–275). London: Sage.CrossRef

Lawrence, T. B., Leca, B., & Zilber, T. B. (2013). Institutional work: Current research, new directions and overlooked issues. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1023–1033.CrossRef

Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–168.CrossRef

Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? How are they different? Do we need them. In P. Leonardi, B. Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (Eds.), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 25–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Leonardi, P. M. (2013). When does technology use enable network change in organizations? A comparative study of feature use and shared affordances. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 749–775.CrossRef

Liu, M., Kang, J., Cao, M., Lim, M., Ko, Y., Myers, R., & Schmitz Weiss, A. (2014). Understanding MOOCs as an emerging online learning tool: Perspectives from the students. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(3), 147–159.CrossRef

Lounsbury, M. (2002). Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionalization of the field of finance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 255–266.CrossRef

Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 289–307.CrossRef

Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83.CrossRef

McPherson, C. M., & Sauder, M. (2013). Logics in action managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 165–196.CrossRef

Micelotta, E., Lounsbury, M., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Pathways of institutional change: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1885–1910.

Morgan-Thomas, A. (2016). Rethinking technology in the SME context: Affordances, practices and ICTs. International Small Business Journal, 34(8), 1122–1136.CrossRef

Nicolini, D., Delmestri, G., Goodrick, E., Reay, T., Lindberg, K., & Adolfsson, P. (2016). Look what’s back! Institutional complexity, reversibility and the knotting of logics. British Journal of Management, 27, 228–248.CrossRef

O’Mahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007). The emergence of governance in an open source community. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1079–1106.CrossRef

Ong, S., & Grigoryan, A. (2015). MOOCs and universities: Competitors or partners? International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(5), 373–376.CrossRef

Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.CrossRef

Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474.CrossRef

Pache, A., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.

Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013a). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.CrossRef

Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013b). Embedded in hybrid contexts: How individuals in organizations respond to competing institutional logics. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39, 3–35.CrossRef

Quinn Trank, C., & Washington, M. (2009). Maintaining the legitimacy of legitimating organizations: The institutional work of the AASCB and its constituents in business education. In T. Lawrence & R. Suddaby (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 236–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

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, 795–843.CrossRef

Reay, T., & Hinings, C. (2005). The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in Alberta. Organization Studies, 26, 351–384.CrossRef

Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30, 629–653.CrossRef

Santos, F., Pache, A. C., & Birkenholz, C. (2015). Making hybrids work: Aligning business models and organizational design for social enterprises. California Management Review, 57(3), 36–58.CrossRef

Schildt, H., & Perkmann, M. (2017). Organizational settlements: Theorizing how organizations respond to institutional complexity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26(2), 139–145.CrossRef

Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2008). The future challenges of business: Rethinking management education. California Management Review, 50(3), 119–140.CrossRef

Smets, M., Morris, T., & Greenwood, R. (2012). From practice to field: A multi-level model of institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 877–904.CrossRef

Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G., & Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 932–970.CrossRef

Thomas, H., & Peters, K. (2012). A sustainable model for business schools. Journal of Management Development, 33(5), 470–486.

Thornton, P. H. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 81–101.CrossRef

Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRef

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. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 801–843.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Thorpe, R., & Rawlinson, R. (2014). Engaging with engagement: How UK business schools could meet the innovation challenge. Journal of Management Development, 33(5), 470–486.CrossRef

Townley, B. (2002). The role of competing rationalities in institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 163–179.CrossRef

Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Communication Yearbook, 36, 143–189.

Van Baalen, P. J., & Moratis, L. T. (2001). Management education in the network economy. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef

Veletsianos, G., & Shepherdson, P. (2015). Who studies MOOCs? Interdisciplinarity in MOOC research and its changes over time. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 1–17.CrossRef

Volkoff, O., & Strong, D. M. (2013). Critical realism and affordances: Theorizing IT-associated organizational change processes. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 819–834.CrossRef

White, S., Davis, H., Dickens, K., León, M., & Sánchez-Vera, M. M. (2014). MOOCs: What motivates the producers and participants? Communications in Computer Science, 510, 99–114.

Yoo, Y., Boland, R., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23(5), 1398–1408.CrossRef

Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724–735.CrossRef

Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education (JISC White Paper).

Zietsma, C., Groenewegen, P., Logue, D., & Hinings, C. R. (2017). Field or fields? Building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields. The Academy of Management Annals, 11, 391–450.CrossRef

Zilber, T. B. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 234–254.CrossRef

Titel: Material Conflict: MOOCs and Institutional Logics in Business Education
verfasst von: Anna Morgan-Thomas
Agostinho Abrunhosa
J. Ignacio Canales
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Materiality in Institutions
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97471-2

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-97472-9

Copyright-Jahr: 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97472-9_9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner