Sociological institutionalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sociological institutionalism is a form of new institutionalism that concerns "the way in which institutions create meaning for individuals."[1] Some sociological institutionalists argue that institutions have developed to become similar (showing an isomorphism) across organizations even though they evolved in different ways.[2][3] Institutions are therefore seen as important in cementing and propagating cultural norms.[4][5] Sociological institutionalists also emphasize how the functions and structures of organizations do not necessarily reflect functional purposes, but rather ceremonies and rituals.[6][3] Actors comply with institutional rules and norms because other types of behavior are inconceivable; actors follow routines because they take a for-granted quality.[7][8]

It originated in work by sociologist John Meyer published in 1977.[9]

Sociological institutionalists hold that a "logic of appropriateness" guides the behavior of actors within an institution. It predicts that the norms and formal rules of institutions will shape the actions of those acting within them. According to James March,[10] the logic of appropriateness means that actions are "matched to situations by means of rules organized into identities." Thus normative institutionalism views that much of the behavior of institutional actors is based on the recognized situation that the actors encounter, the identity of the actors in the situation, and the analysis by the actor of the rules that generally govern behavior for that actor in that particular situation.

According to Jack Knight, sociological institutionalism fails to explain behavior where members of an institution fail to act with their defined institutional roles.[11] He argues that it is difficult for sociological institutionalism to explain institutional change.[11]

See also[]

References[]

  1. ^ Lowndes, Vivien (2010), "The Institutional Approach", in Marsh, D.; Stoker, G. (eds.), Theories and Methods in Political Science, Basingstoke: Palgrave, p. 65
  2. ^ DiMaggio & Powell 1991.
  3. ^ Jump up to: a b Meyer, John W.; Rowan, Brian (1977). "Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony". American Journal of Sociology. 83 (2): 340–363. doi:10.1086/226550. ISSN 0002-9602. JSTOR 2778293. S2CID 141398636.
  4. ^ Finnemore, Martha (1996). National Interests in International Society. Cornell University Press. p. 3. JSTOR 10.7591/j.ctt1rv61rh.
  5. ^ Ramirez, Francisco O.; Soysal, Yasemin; Shanahan, Suzanne (1997). "The Changing Logic of Political Citizenship: Cross-National Acquisition of Women's Suffrage Rights, 1890 to 1990". American Sociological Review. 62 (5): 735–745. doi:10.2307/2657357. ISSN 0003-1224.
  6. ^ Farrell, Henry (2018), Glückler, Johannes; Suddaby, Roy; Lenz, Regina (eds.), "The Shared Challenges of Institutional Theories: Rational Choice, Historical Institutionalism, and Sociological Institutionalism", Knowledge and Institutions, Knowledge and Space, Springer, 13, pp. 23–44, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75328-7_2, ISBN 978-3-319-75328-7
  7. ^ Scott, Richard W. (2014). Institutions and organizations : ideas, interests and identities. Sage. ISBN 978-1-45224222-4. OCLC 945411429.
  8. ^ Schmidt, V.A. (2010), Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth 'new institutionalism'.
  9. ^ Powell, Walter W.; DiMaggio, Paul J. (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226185941.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-226-67709-5.
  10. ^ March, James G. (1994), Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen, Free Press, pp. 57–58.
  11. ^ Jump up to: a b Knight, Jack (1992). Institutions and Social Conflict. Cambridge University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-521-42189-8.
Retrieved from ""