No abstract

No abstract

We draw on the institutional work literature to analyse the rhetoric in mainstream media spawned by the global financial crisis. We identify the emerging positions (status quo, neutral and change) of actors on major themes (policy, practices, recovery and regulation) related to the crisis and the rhetorical processes used (appeals to expert authority, finding someone to blame, use of scenarios, and avoidance of critical discussion) to communicate these positions. We find that academics lead the charge for change in policy, relying mostly on rhetorical processes that involve the use of past scenarios and blame, but also often avoid critical discussion through over-generalization. In contrast, banks focus on changes in practices, mostly using future scenarios, finding specific others to blame, and also appealing to expert authority. The US Federal Reserve takes the lead on maintaining the status quo on regulation-related issues, largely through using various scenarios and appeals to expert authority. We also find a large number of neutral positions and interpret this as tacit support for existing institutions. We conclude by charting out a broader research agenda for further investigation of the actors-institutions interplay, particularly within the context of the financial crisis.

Research has suggested that when an occupation is stigmatized, new occupational members will assume the stigma of incumbents because stigma transfers. Yet, current research does not account for shifts in the modern workforce that are changing the nature of many stigmatized occupations. We argue that these changes raise questions about whether stigma will transfer to new occupational members. Drawing from a study of Uber’s entry into Toronto, Canada, we reveal the process by which stigma transfer can be avoided by new occupational members. We show how categorical ambiguity during entry enabled two sets of activities: creating categorical distinctiveness and showcasing identity discrepancies. These activities acted as mechanisms of stigma deflection by distancing Uber drivers from the taint associated with taxi drivers. However, this further entrenched the taint facing incumbents and stratified the occupation along a stigma faultline. We offer implications for research on stigma, market entry, and the sharing economy.

In this article we explore how elite actors respond to a field-wide crisis. Drawing from a study of CEOs of large US banks in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis, we show how elite actors use rhetorical strategies to defend their dominant position in the field. Specifically, we show how actors strengthen their epistemic authority – the perceived expertise and trustworthiness of an actor – through four distinct but interwoven rhetorical strategies. Actors used two internally-directed means of strengthening epistemic authority by providing rational guarantees and expressing normative responsibilities, and two externally-directed strategies that sought to strengthen their own epistemic authority by lowering the epistemic authority of others through critiquing judgments and questioning motives. We contribute to research on defensive institutional work by highlighting how elite actors rhetorically defended their position following a field-wide crisis.