Field or Fields? Building the Scaffolding for Cumulation of Research on Institutional Fields

Abstract

The concept of an institutional field is one of the cornerstones of institutional theory, and yet the concept has been stretched both theoretically and empirically, making consolidation of findings across multiple studies more difficult. In this article, we review the literature and analyze empirical studies of institutional fields to build scaffolding for the cumulation of research on institutional fields. Our review revealed two types of fields: exchange and issue fields, with three subtypes of each. We describe their characteristics. Subsequently, we review field conditions in the extant literature and develop a typology based on two dimensions: the extent of elaboration of institutional infrastructure and the extent to which there is an agreed upon prioritization of logics. We discuss the implications of field types and conditions for isomorphism, agency, and field change, based on a review of the literature that revealed six pathways of field change and the factors affecting them. We outline a research agenda based on our review highlighting the need for consolidation of field studies and identify several outstanding issues that are in need of further research.

Toward a theory of supply chain fields – understanding the institutional process of supply chain localization

“…Gravitation and magnetism offer a metaphoric sense of forces, positions and orientation of particles (or actors) in institutional theory. Field theory in social science purports to explain how the interaction between the field and elements within it results in changes in the states of the elements (see Zietsma et al, 2017 for a review). Fields are considered the basic structural building blocks of modern political/organizational life.…”

“…Coming from different social science disciplines and research interests, these conceptions of fields share some meanings: fields are (1) local social orders-structured spaces of coalition and domination among actors (Fligstein, 2001, 107); (2) collections of diverse, interdependent organizations that participate in a common meaning system (Scott, 2014, 106) and (3) accretions of forces and organized striving. Fields are arenas in which meanings are contested and power shifts (Wooten and Hoffman, 2008;Zietsma et al, 2017). DiMaggio and Powell's (1983, 148) definition of an organizational field is the most pertinent to SC management, focusing on production operations and calling out the actors involved.…”

Institution‐Infused Sensemaking of Discontinuous Innovations: The Case of the Sharing Economy

“…Within this context, the global hotel industry is the first major organizational field to feel the impact of new sharing economy companies, especially online room‐sharing platforms, such as Airbnb, that enable individuals to offer and book private accommodation via a website (Zervas, Proserpio, and Byers, ). In line with numerous studies on institutions and change (e.g., Mazza and Pedersen, ) and in light of the emerging debate on the economic impact of platforms like Airbnb (Guttentag, ), this paper focuses on the dominant population of actors in the focal organizational field (Zietsma et al, ) of the accommodation industry: incumbent hotel companies. At the same time, the analysis in this study is comprehensive, as it is sensitive to institutions shared by other organizations in this field, such as (online) travel agencies.…”

Practice Transfer in Organizations: The Role of Governance Mode for Internal and External Fit

“…Notably, while external fit is largely a function of the national environment in cases of cross-national transfer, it will take different forms in domestic transfer processes, possibly at the level of fields (Zietsma et al 2016). More broadly, this study leverages existing arguments about the role of fit with the environment (DiMaggio and Powell 1983;Meyer and Rowan 1977) to explore transfer processes in organizations.…”