Organising Agents and Institutions (Michael Lounsbury, Mary Ann Glynn and Fabian Muniesa) (May 11-15, 2009)

Faculty
Professor Michael Lounsbury,University of Alberta School of Business; Professor Mary Ann Glynn, Boston College, USA; Professor Fabian Muniesa, Ecole des mines de Paris, France; and from the Department of Organization the following researchers are involved in the course: Professor Peter Karnøe; Ass. Professor Signe Vikkelsø and Professor Ann Westenholz
Course Coordinator
Professor Ann Westenholz (aw.ioa@cbs.dk)
Prerequisite/progression of the course
The PhD student is required to present a five-pages (maximum) written presentation, in which she/he relates parts of the curriculum literature in the course to his or her project. We prefer empirically based projects. The presentation must include specific references to the literature applied. The student presentation should provide material for discussion in minor groups during the course, and the student must be willing to participate in discussions of other presentations. Deadline for sunmission of the paper is 20 April, 2009.
It is a precondition for receiving the course diploma that the student attends the entire course.
Aim of the course
The course focuses on the theoretical tensional field of actor-network theory, new-institutional theory, and the theory of symbolic interactionism (sensemaking theory) with a view to the nature and dynamics of organising processes. The purpose is to enable the PhD scholar to clarify and formulate his/her own theoretical position and to relate it productively to concrete issues of organising.
Course content, structure and teaching
A dialogue between Actor-Network-Theory (ANT), New-Institutional-Theory (NIT), and Symbolic Interactionism (SI).
Actor-Network-Theory has emerged as a new school within science & technology studies, sociology and organisation theory. Drawing on post-structuralism and pragmatism, it has developed a unique material-semiotic approach, which has stimulated a range of novel empirical studies as well as a number of theoretical debates with contemporary social science.
New-Institutional Organisational Theory challenges the functionalist explanations of organisational behaviour by pointing towards the growing significance of the role of meaning in the production and reproduction of social practice in organisational studies. But New Institutional Theory has been subject to both internal and external criticism of having, among other things, replaced the invisible hand of the market with the invisible hand of culture. The criticism has led to various attempts to introduce the role of institutional actors in New Institutional theory.
Symbolic Interactionism and Organisational Sensemaking Theory focuses on inherent complexity and ambiguity of real-world organisations and their environments, and understands the creation of reality as an ongoing accomplishment that takes form when people make sense of situations retrospectively – and as such they enact their world.
The three theories have their own distinctiveness, but by bringing them together in one course we hope to produce productive synergy between them. This happens by asking each theory to deal with three key theoretical problem issues:
Power/control
Macro/micro
Stability/change.
Learning Objectives
The participants get insights into the theoretical tensional field of actor-network theory, new-institutional theory, and the theory of symbolic interactionism (sensemaking theory) with a view to the nature and dynamics of organising processes. The participants also get insights in how to use the theory on empirical work, especially in their own projects.
Teaching methods
Lectures with workshops, dialogues and student discussions.
Course literature
(Course participants are expected to have read this literature before the course)
Provisional
The provisional list includes both the obligatory readings as well as the supplementary reading, and the distinction between the two will be done in due time before the course starts.
  • Akrich, M. (1992) ‘The de-scription of technical objects’, in W. E. Bijker and J. Law (eds.) Shaping technology / building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press, pp. 205-224
  • Blumer, H. (1969). "Sociological Implications of the Thought of George Herbert Mead," and "Society as Symbolic Interaction" in Symbolic Interactionism, University of California Press, Berkely, pp. 61-89
  • Callon, M. (1991) ‘Techno-economic networks and irreversibility’, in J. Law (ed.) A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination, Oxford: Blackwell, pp.132-164
  • Callon, M. (1986) ‘Elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay’, in J. Law (ed.) Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge?, London: Routledge, pp. 196-233
  • Callon, M. (1986) ‘The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle’, in M. Callon, J. Law and A. Rip (eds.) Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world, London: Macmillan, pp. 19-34
  • Callon, M. and Latour, B. (1981) ‘Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: how actors macrostructure reality and how sociologists help them to do so’, in K. D. Knorr Cetina and A. V. Cicourel (eds.) Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies, Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 277-303
  • Clemens, E. S. and J, M. Cook (1999) Politics and Institutionalism - Explaining Durability and Change. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 25:441-66
  • Czarniawska, B. and J. Joerges (1996) Travels of ideas. In Czarniawska, B and G. Sevón (eds.) Translating Organizational Change. Walter de Gruyter & co, Berlin
  • Davis, G. F. & C. Marquis. (2005) Prospect for Organization Theory in the Early Twenty-‘First Centrury: Institutional Fields and Mechanisms. Organization Studies: 16:4:332-343
  • Djelic, Marie-Laure. (1998). Exporting the American Model: The Postwar Transformation of European Business. New York: Oxford University Press. (selected parts of the book)
  • Drazin, R., M. A. Glynn & R. K. Kazanjian. (1999) Multilevel theorizing about creativity in Organizations: A Sensemaking Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24:2:286-307
  • Frank Dobbin and Dirk Zorn. (2005) Corporate Malfeasance and the Myth of Shareholder Value. Political Power and Social Theory: 17:179-198
  • Frank Dobbin and Timothy Dowd. (2000) The Market that Antitrust Built: Public Policy, Private Coercion, and Railroad Acquisitions, 1825-1922. American Sociological Review 65: 631-657
  • Friedland, R. and R. Alford (1991) Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions. In Powell, W.W. and P.J. DiMaggio (eds.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
  • Hoffman, A. J. (1999) Institutional evolution and change. AMJ 42:4:351-371
  • Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1981) The micro-sociological challenge of Macro-sociology: Towards a restructuring of social theory and methodology. In Knorr-Cetina & A.V. Cicourel (eds.) Advances in social theory and methodology: 1-47
  • Latour, B. (1983) ‘Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world’, in K. D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (eds.) Science observed: New perspectives on the social studies of science, London: SAGE, pp. 141-170
  • Latour, B. (1995) ‘The ‘pedofil’ of Boa Vista: a photo-philosophical montage’, Common Knowledge 4(1): 145-187 (alternate version available in Latour, B. 1999 Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies, Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Press, pp. 24-79)
  • Latour, B. (2005) ‘On the difficulty of being and ANT: An interlude in the form of a dialogue’, in Latour, B. 2005 Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 141-156 (alternate version available as: Latour, B. 2004 ‘On using ANT for studying information systems: A (somewhat) socratic dialogue’, in C. Avgerou, C. Ciborra and F. F. Land (eds.), 2004, The social study of information and communication technology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 62-76)
  • Law, J. (1989) ‘Technology and heterogeneous engineering: the case of Portuguese expansion’, in W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes and T. Pinch (eds.) The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology, Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press, pp. 11-134
  • Law, J. and Callon, M. (1988) ‘Engineering and sociology in a military aircraft project: A network analysis of technological change’, Social Problems 35(3): 284-297
  • Lounsbury, Michael & Ellen T. Crumley. 2007. New Practice Creation: An Institutional Approach to Innovation. Organization Studies, 28: 993-1012
  • Lounsbury, Michael, Marc Ventresca and Paul Hirsch. 2003. Social Movements, Field Frames and Industry Emergence: A Cultural-Political Perspective on U.S, Recycling. Socio-Economic Review, 1: 71-104
  • Maguire, S., C. Hardy and T. B. Lawrence (2004) Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields. AMJ 47:5:657-679
  • MiMaggio, P (1988) Interests and Agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (ed.) Institutional Patterns and Organizations - Culture and Environment
  • Strauss, A. (1985). "Work and the Division of Labor," The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 1-19
  • Weick, K. E. & M. Sulcliffe (2005) Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. Organization Science: 16:4:409-421.
Recommended literature
Please see above.

Sidst opdateret af Katja Høeg Tingleff 03.03.2009