Bourdieu and organizational analysis

Abstract

Despite some promising steps in the right direction, organizational analysis has yet to exploit fully the theoretical and empirical possibilities inherent in the writings of Pierre Bourdieu. While certain concepts associated with his thought, such as field and capital, are already widely known in the organizational literature, the specific ways in which these terms are being used provide ample evidence that the full significance of his relational mode of thought has yet to be sufficiently apprehended. Moreover, the almost complete inattention to habitus, the third of Bourdieu's major concepts, without which the concepts of field and capital (at least as he deployed them) make no sense, further attests to the misappropriation of his ideas and to the lack of appreciation of their potential usefulness. It is our aim in this paper, by contrast, to set forth a more informed and comprehensive account of what a relational -and, in particular, a Bourdieu-inspired -agenda for organizational research might look like. Accordingly, we examine the implications of his theoretical framework for interorganizational relations, as well as for organizations themselves analyzed as fields. The primary advantage of such an approach, we argue, is the central place accorded therein to the social conditions under which inter-and intraorganizational power relations are produced, reproduced, and contested.Despite some promising steps in the right direction, organizational analysis has yet to exploit fully the theoretical and empirical possibilities inherent in a relational

Justification, Evaluation and Critique in the Study of Organizations: An Introduction to the Volume

“…In contrast with other theories, such as the Bourdieusian sociology (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008), the EW framework does not claim to be a complete sociological theory which explains all aspects of social life. On the contrary, it has maintained constant dialogue with other approaches such as the economies of conventions (for a review see Biggart & Beamish (2003) or Actor Network Theory (Guggenheim & Potthast, 2012).…”

“…In these authors' view, and using their terminology, social actors with critical competencies will voice their concerns about the situation (critique), suggest and advocate for alternate, presumably more "acceptable" courses of action (justification) and assess action outcomes (both real and imagined) against the criteria they deemed were most appropriate (evaluation (Golsorkhi, Leca, Lounsbury, & Ramirez, 2009), explain practice (Golsorkhi, 2016;Gomez, 2015), and have even suggested a Bourdieu-based approach for studying organizations (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008), others have suggested that the EW framework is a better lens for arriving at a fuller understanding of organizational practices more generally (Denis et al, 2007).…”

Disputas do Estado em Favelas: O Campo Burocrático e o Capital Espacial

“…Seguindo sua analogia com um jogo, Bourdieu e Wacquant (2012) comparam os diferentes tipos de capital como cartas de um baralho, sendo que o valor relativo de cada uma delas muda de acordo com o jogo em questão. Os capitais servem, portanto, como armas na luta por ascendência em um campo (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008).…”

A Pesquisa como Prática Social: um Estudo sob a Perspectiva Bourdieusiana

“…Entretanto, campos específicos podem se organizar por meio de outros princípios de diferenciação, propiciando o surgimento de outros tipos de capitais mais restritos a estruturação desses campos (EMIRBAYER; JOHNSON, 2008). Então, além destes capitais citados, existem outros mais, na quantidade em que forem identificados e constituírem valor de distinção em campos específicos.…”