Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
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.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Alford, R. R., & Friedland, R. (1985). Powers of theory: Capitalism, the state, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Antunes, D., & Thomas, H. (2007). The competitive (dis)advantages of European Business Schools. Long Range Planning, 40(3), 382–404.
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.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1419–1440.
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.
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.
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.
Dellarocas, C., & Van Alstyne, M. (2013). Money models for MOOCs. Communications of the ACM, 56(8), 25–28.
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.
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.
Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2009). On the identity of technological objects and user innovations in function. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 442–462.
Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2013). Technological objects, social positions and the transformational model of social activity. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 37(3), 803–818.
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.
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.
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.
Goodrick, E., & Salancik, G. R. (1996). Organizational discretion in responding to institutional practices: Hospitals and caesarean births. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 1–28.
Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. (1959). Higher education for business. The Journal of Business Education, 35(3), 115–117.
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 317–371.
Hargadon, D. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476–501.
Hay, M. (2008). Business schools: A new sense of purpose. Journal of Management Development, 27(4), 371–378.
Hinings, B., Gegenhuberb, T., & Greenwood, R. (2018). Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Information and Organization, 28, 52–61.
Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). Why do institutions offer MOOCs? Online Learning, 18(3), 1–15.
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.
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.
Jones, C., Boxenbaum, E., & Callen, A. (2013). The immaterial of the material in institutional logics. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39A, 51–75.
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.
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.
Lawrence, T. B., Leca, B., & Zilber, T. B. (2013). Institutional work: Current research, new directions and overlooked issues. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1023–1033.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lounsbury, M. (2002). Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionalization of the field of finance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 255–266.
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.
Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83.
McPherson, C. M., & Sauder, M. (2013). Logics in action managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 165–196.
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.
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.
O’Mahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007). The emergence of governance in an open source community. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1079–1106.
Ong, S., & Grigoryan, A. (2015). MOOCs and universities: Competitors or partners? International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(5), 373–376.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404–428.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. (2005). The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in Alberta. Organization Studies, 26, 351–384.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30, 629–653.
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.
Schildt, H., & Perkmann, M. (2017). Organizational settlements: Theorizing how organizations respond to institutional complexity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26(2), 139–145.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2008). The future challenges of business: Rethinking management education. California Management Review, 50(3), 119–140.
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.
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.
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.
Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
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.
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.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Townley, B. (2002). The role of competing rationalities in institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 163–179.
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.
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.
Volkoff, O., & Strong, D. M. (2013). Critical realism and affordances: Theorizing IT-associated organizational change processes. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 819–834.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Material Conflict: MOOCs and Institutional Logics in Business Education
J. Ignacio Canales
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta