Field or fields? Building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields

Zietsma, C; Groenewegen, P; Logue, DM; Bob Hinings, CR

Field or fields? Building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields

Zietsma, C

Groenewegen, P Logue, DM

Bob Hinings, CR

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Academy of Management Annals, 2017, 11 (1), pp. 391 - 450
Issue Date:: 2017-01-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted Manuscript VersionAdobe PDF (832.02 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Zietsma, C https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6439-3320	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Groenewegen, P	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Logue, DM https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7892-2553	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Bob Hinings, CR	en_US
dc.date.available	2020-05-25T19:14:14Z
dc.date.issued	2017-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Academy of Management Annals, 2017, 11 (1), pp. 391 - 450	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1941-6520	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/49768
dc.description.abstract	© Academy of Management, all rights reserved. The concept of an institutional field is one of the cornerstones of institutional theory, and yet the concept has been stretched both theoretically and empirically, making consolidation of findings across multiple studies more difficult. In this article, we review the literature and analyze empirical studies of institutional fields to build scaffolding for the cumulation of research on institutional fields. Our review revealed two types of fields: exchange and issue fields, with three subtypes of each. We describe their characteristics, and subsequently, review field conditions in the extant literature and develop a typology based on two dimensions: the extent of elaboration of institutional infrastructure and the extent to which there is an agreed-upon prioritization of logics. We discuss the implications of field types and conditions for isomorphism, agency, and field change, based on a review of the literature that revealed six pathways of field change and the factors affecting them. We outline a research agenda based on our review highlighting the need for consolidation of field studies and identify several outstanding issues that are in need of further research.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Academy of Management Annals	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.5465/annals.2014.0052	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Business & Management	en_US
dc.title	Field or fields? Building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	1	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	11	en_US
utslib.for	1503 Business and Management	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/Management Discipline
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.issue	1	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	11	en_US

Abstract:

© Academy of Management, all rights reserved. The concept of an institutional field is one of the cornerstones of institutional theory, and yet the concept has been stretched both theoretically and empirically, making consolidation of findings across multiple studies more difficult. In this article, we review the literature and analyze empirical studies of institutional fields to build scaffolding for the cumulation of research on institutional fields. Our review revealed two types of fields: exchange and issue fields, with three subtypes of each. We describe their characteristics, and subsequently, review field conditions in the extant literature and develop a typology based on two dimensions: the extent of elaboration of institutional infrastructure and the extent to which there is an agreed-upon prioritization of logics. We discuss the implications of field types and conditions for isomorphism, agency, and field change, based on a review of the literature that revealed six pathways of field change and the factors affecting them. We outline a research agenda based on our review highlighting the need for consolidation of field studies and identify several outstanding issues that are in need of further research.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/49768