Paul Tracey, Nelson Phillips and Michael Lounsbury
Despite its central importance in nearly all societies, religion has been largely neglected in the study of organizations and management. In this introduction to the volume on…
Abstract
Despite its central importance in nearly all societies, religion has been largely neglected in the study of organizations and management. In this introduction to the volume on religion and organization theory, we argue that such neglect limits unnecessarily the relevance and scope of organization and management theory (OMT) and that there is therefore great value in connecting organizational research with a deeper appreciation and concern for religion. We begin by speculating about some of the reasons why organization and management theorists are hesitant to study religion, and go on to discuss some nascent points of contact between religion and OMT. We conclude with a discussion of the articles in this volume, which represent an attempt to remedy this unfortunate blind spot within OMT scholarship.
Details
Keywords
This article reviews the historical development of the treatment of religious organizations in journals centered on religion.
Abstract
Purpose
This article reviews the historical development of the treatment of religious organizations in journals centered on religion.
Design/methodology/approach
The article asks four questions: (1) Are religious organizations different from other kinds of organizations? (2) What factors produce differences or similarities between religious and other organizations? (3) Are religious organizations different from each other?
Findings
Differences from other kinds of organizations are based in beliefs/theology. But there is a constant concern with the bureaucratization of religious organizations as they are subject to general organizational influences such as scale and geographical dispersion. However, it is argued that these general influences emanate from belief systems. We suggest the need for a renewed attention to a comparative organizations perspective in organization theory – one that appreciates the similarities and differences between sectors and within sectors.
Originality/value
Not only are there differences between religious and nonreligious organizations, but there are also substantial differences between religious organizations. There are also similarities between religious and nonreligious organizations, as well as similarities between religious organizations. The way forward for both the study of religious organizations and organizational theory in general is to look for explanations for these similarities and differences.
Details
Keywords
This article reviews research published in secular management journals that examines what the world’s largest religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, and Islam…
Abstract
This article reviews research published in secular management journals that examines what the world’s largest religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, and Islam) say about management. In terms of how religion informs management, the literature identifies two basic means: (1) written scriptures (e.g., Analects, Bible, Quran) and (2) experiential spiritual practices (e.g., prayer, mindfulness). In terms of what religion says about management, the emphasis tends to be either on (1) enhancing, or (2) liberating mainstream management. Studies based on scriptures typically either enhance or liberate management, whereas empirical research based on spiritual disciplines consistently point to liberation. Implications are discussed.
Details
Keywords
Wendy L. Currie, Ian A. Glover and Paul J. Tracey
This paper will offer answers or partial answers to the following three questions. How important should manufacturing be for the United Kingdom (UK)? If it is relatively…
Abstract
This paper will offer answers or partial answers to the following three questions. How important should manufacturing be for the United Kingdom (UK)? If it is relatively important, and if the UK fails to satisfy its own expectations regarding manufacturing performance, why is this the case? And what, if anything, should be done about it?
Laura Claus, Mark de Rond, Jennifer Howard-Grenville and Jan Lodge
We explore the lived experience of organizational scholars who have conducted fieldwork in unsettling contexts. Through analyzing our interviews with these scholars, we find…
Abstract
We explore the lived experience of organizational scholars who have conducted fieldwork in unsettling contexts. Through analyzing our interviews with these scholars, we find themes around the causes and consequences of unsettling fieldwork, and the coping strategies employed. We reflect on the often overlooked emotional and relational aspects of conducting and coping with unsettling fieldwork, and offer some suggestions for how scholars might support each other, especially given the increasing prevalence of organizational scholarship that pushes boundaries by engaging unconventional topics and settings.
Details
Keywords
Isabel Brüggemann, Jochem Kroezen and Paul Tracey
This study gives insights into how marginalized logics evolve after having been replaced by a new dominant logic. In light of the case of UK trade book publishing where an…
Abstract
This study gives insights into how marginalized logics evolve after having been replaced by a new dominant logic. In light of the case of UK trade book publishing where an editorial logic persisted and morphed after the increasing commercialization of the field – epitomized by the proliferation of so-called “factory fiction” – the authors identify three generative paths of marginalized logic evolution: preservation, purification and radicalization. The authors show how these paths hinge on the activities of three groups of actors who resist conforming to a dominant logic. The findings of this study advance scholars’ understanding of the historical evolution of institutional logics, but also remind them that the acts of resistance are typically embedded in macro-level dynamics related to broader institutional processes. In particular, this study sheds light on the different ways in which acts of resistance may be structured by actors’ experience of friction between competing institutional logics.
Details
Keywords
Guillermo Casasnovas and Marc Ventresca
Recent research develops theory and evidence to understand how organizations come to be seen as “actors” with specified features and properties, a core concern for…
Abstract
Recent research develops theory and evidence to understand how organizations come to be seen as “actors” with specified features and properties, a core concern for phenomenological institutionalism. The authors use evidence from changes in research designs in the organizational study of institutional logics as an empirical strategy to add fresh evidence to the debates about the institutional construction of organizations as actors. The case is the research literature on the institutional logics perspective, a literature in which organizational and institutional theorists grapple with long-time social theory questions about nature and context of action and more contemporary debates about the dynamics of social orders. With rapid growth since the early 1990s, this research program has elaborated and proliferated in ways meant to advance the study of societal orders, frames, and practices in diverse inter- and intra-organizational contexts. The study identifies two substantive trends over the observation period: A shift in research design from field-level studies to organization-specific contexts, where conflicts are prominent in the organization, and a shift in the conception of logic transitions, originally from one dominant logic to another, then more attention to co-existence or blending of logics. Based on this evidence, the authors identify a typology of four available research genres that mark a changed conception of organizations as actors. The case of institutional logics makes visible the link between research designs and research outcomes, and it provides new evidence for the institutional processes that construct organizational actorhood.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this paper is to advocate for greater use of ethnographic research methods in entrepreneurship studies to produce more contextualized research. An argument for…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to advocate for greater use of ethnographic research methods in entrepreneurship studies to produce more contextualized research. An argument for getting “up-close” and “hands-on” is presented to better understand how context shapes action in entrepreneurship than is presently achieved under the present entrepreneurship research orthodoxy. The need for contextualized research is particularly acute in the domain of social innovation. For its maturation as a field of research, it also requires stronger critical perspectives into the agendas and impacts of practitioners and other field-shaping actors. Ethnographic approaches are potentially powerful methods for revealing truths of this nature. Ethnographic methods are, however, problematic for professional researchers. The challenges of conducting such research are discussed.
Design/methodology/approach
Conceptual paper regarding research methods in social innovation and social entrepreneurship studies.
Findings
Social entrepreneurship that happens within established organizations is a hybrid social innovation activity that is informed, constrained, and compelled by idiosyncratic social contexts which are fashioned by institutional logics, identities, organizational culture, and history. With its contestable conceptualizations, priorities, models, purposes, and approaches, it arguably defies researchers’ ability to build a deep understanding, from arm’s length, of how the activity is undertaken for theory building purposes. Ethnographic methods enable deeper insight than traditional entrepreneurship research methods, and this research illustrates the differences between the espoused intentions, beliefs, and attitudes of managers and the lived experience of staff.
Originality/value
Social entrepreneurship is a micro-level, hybrid social innovation activity that challenges embedded social, structural, and cultural norms when undertaken within established organizations. Ethnographic methods are under-utilized in exploring this and other forms of entrepreneurial action. This paper illustrates the value of ethnography for contextualizing social innovation research and that eschewing “arm’s length” objectivity for “hands-on” insight is a powerful approach to empirically contextualizing social innovation and contributing to more critical perspectives and sophisticated theory building.