Opening Fields: A Methodological Contribution to the Identification of Heterogeneous Actors in Unbounded Relational Orders
Institutional scholarship studies how individuals coexist and interact with social structures. Organizations and inter-organizational relations within industries are a central focus of these studies. Hence, empirical research has so far largely relied on the observation of individual actors identified by their organizational attributes, and organizations identified by their industry characteristics. The flourishing of new types of social structures has sent an invitation to observe a broader range of actors beyond organizations stricto sensu, and to define the arena of interest beyond the boundaries of industry membership. However, in practice, these remain a favorite starting point of empirical investigations. In this article, we present a new method for the study of organizational fields that facilitates the identification of a large number and varied types of actors in a given field, provides a characterization of the relational structure of the field, and offers a content analysis on different sub-regions of the field. We test the method by replicating a previous study in the field of ‘social impact of nonprofits’, and show how it can contribute to operationalize mechanisms at play in the field. We conclude by noting that the principles of this method can extend beyond the dataset it is originally built on and facilitate a comparative approach to the study of fields. This contribution should enhance the value of the field as a theoretical construct by extending its operational reach.
Manuscript accepted by Thomas Roulet
Bhattacharya, P., Ghosh, S., Kulshrestha, J., Mondal, M., et al. (2014). Deep Twitter diving: Exploring topical groups in Microblogs at scale. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 197–210.
Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J. L., Lambiotte, R. & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008. doi: 10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008
Bourdieu, P. (1984 ). Distinction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1996 ). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Clegg, S., Josserand, E., Mehra, A. & Pitsis, T. S. (2016). The transformative power of network dynamics: A research agenda. Organization Studies, 37(3), 277–291. doi: 10.1177/0170840616629047
Davis, G. F. & Marquis, C. (2005). Prospects for organization theory in the early twenty-first century: Institutional fields and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16(4), 332–343. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0137
De Nooy, W. (2003). Fields and networks: Correspondence analysis and social network analysis in the framework of field theory. Poetics, 31(5–6), 305–327. doi: 10.1016/S0304-422X(03)00035-4
DiMaggio, P. (1987). Classification in art. American Sociological Review, 52(4), 440–455. doi: 10.2307/2095290
DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. doi: 10.2307/2095101
Dubois, S. & Walsh, I. (2017). The globalization of research highlighted through the research networks of management education institutions: The case of French business schools. M@n@gement, 20(5), 435–462. doi: 10.3917/mana.205.0435
Etter, M., Ravasi, D. & Colleoni, E. (2019). Social media and the formation of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 28–52. doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0280
Furnari, S. (2016). Institutional fields as linked arenas: Inter-field resource dependence, institutional work and institutional change. Human Relations, 69(3), 551–580. doi: 10.1177/0018726715605555
Furnari, S. (2020). Industry or field? The value of the field construct to study digital creative industries. In J. Strandgaard Pedersen, B. Slavich & M. Khaire, (Eds.), Technology and creativity (pp. 63–86). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Greenwood, S., Perrin, A. & Duggan, M. (2016). Social media update 2016. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2016/11/10132827/PI_2016.11.11_Social-Media-Update_FINAL.pdf
Heijmans, R., Heuver, R., Levallois, C. & van Lelyveld, I. (2016). Dynamic visualization of large financial networks. Journal of Network Theory in Finance, 2(2), 57–79. doi: 10.21314/JNTF.2016.017
Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 351–371. doi: 10.5465/257008
Jacomy, M., Venturini, T., Heymann, S. & Bastian, M. (2014). ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PLoS One, 9(6), e98679. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098679
Jansson, J. & Hracs, B. J. (2018). Conceptualizing curation in the age of abundance: The case of recorded music. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 50(8), 1602–1625. doi: 10.1177/0308518X18777497
Lampel, J. & Meyer, A. D. (2008). Guest editors’ introduction. Journal of Management Studies, 45(6), 1025–1035. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00787.x
Latour, B. (1986). Visualisation and cognition: Drawing things together. In H. Kuklick (Ed.), Knowledge and society studies in the sociology of culture past and present (Vol. 6, pp. 1–40). Greenwich: Jai Press.
Maire, S. & Liarte, S. (2018). Building on visuals: Taking stock and moving ahead. M@n@gement, 21(4), 1405–1423. doi: 10.3917/mana.214.1405
McAdam, D. & Scott, W. R. (2005). Organizations and movements. In G. F. Davis, D. McAdam, W. R. Scott & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Social movements and organization theory (pp. 4–40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Menichinelli, M. (2016). Mapping the structure of the global maker laboratories community through Twitter connections. In C. Levallois, M. Marchand, M. Mata & A. Panisson (Eds.), Twitter for research handbook (pp. 47–62). Lyon: EM Lyon Press.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. doi: 10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
Piao, G. & Breslin, J. G. (2017). Inferring user interests in microblogging social networks: A survey. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 28(3), 277–329. doi: 10.1007/s11257-018-9207-8
Powell, W. W., Oberg, A., Korff, V. & Oelberger, C., et al. (2017). Institutional analysis in a digital era: Mechanisms and methods to understand emerging fields. In G. Krücken, C. Mazza, R.E. Meyer & P. Walgenbach (Eds.), New themes in institutional analysis (pp. 305–344). Northampton, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895–1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (Suppl. 1), 29–44. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250150904
Saxton, G. D. & Ghosh, A. (2016). Curating for engagement: Identifying the nature and impact of organizational marketing strategies on Pinterest. First Monday, 21(9). doi: 10.5210/fm.v21i9.6020
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. doi: 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
Villi, M., Moisander, J. & Joy, A. (2012). Social curation in consumer communities: Consumers as curators of online media content. In Z. Gürhan-Canli, C. Otnes & R. Zhu, (Eds.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 40, pp. 490–495). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Wedlin, L. (2007). The role of rankings in codifying a business school template: Classifications, diffusion and mediated isomorphism in organizational fields. European Management Review, 4(1), 24–39. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.emr.1500073
Wooten, M. & Hoffman, A. J. (2017). Organizational fields: Past, present and future. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence & R. E. Meyer (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd edn., pp. 131–147). London: Sage.
Zietsma, C., Groenewegen, P., Logue, D. M. & Hinings, C. R. (2017). Field or fields? Building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 391–450. doi: 10.5465/annals.2014.0052
Copyright (c) 2020 Mohamed Benabdelkrim, Clément Levallois, Jean Savinien, Céline Robardet
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.