Institutional Theory in Sport: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Institutional theory has generated considerable insight into fundamental issues within sport. This study seeks to advance Washington and Patterson’s review by providing an empirical review of institutional theory in sport. We follow Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review protocol to identify 188 sport-related institutional studies between 1979 and 2019. Our review provides evidence regarding the state of institutional scholarship within sport via an analysis of authorship, year, journal, methodology, method, study population, and use of institutional constructs (legitimacy, isomorphism, change, logics, fields, and work). Rather than a hostile takeover or a joint venture proposed in Washington and Patterson’s review, the relationship between fields is more aptly described as a diffusion of ideas. By developing an empirical review of institutional studies in sport, we hope to expedite the diffusion of ideas between the two fields and work toward realizing the collective benefits any future joint venture may bring.

Understanding the Lack of Diversity in Sport Consumer Behavior Research

“…Institutions can be formal organizations or a broad set of ideas that, over time and through repetition, become rule-like norms (Nite & Edwards, 2021). Though institutional work was a "relatively unexplored" theoretical tool in sport management (Edwards & Washington, 2015), scholars have begun drawing from it more frequently to understand how individuals navigate institutions (Nite & Edwards, 2021;Robertson et al, 2021). Most of the research in this area focuses on how, why, and when actors work to shape institutions; what factors inhibit or facilitate actors' ability to do so; and the experiences of those who engage in institutional work.…”

Assessment of the Relationship Between the AST&D Beneficiaries and the Perceived Benefits and Challenges

“…Previous studies attempted to explain the institutional adoption of intervention programs using the institutional framework (Li et al, 2021). According to institutional proponents, organizations and society must strictly adhere to societal expectations of an acceptable practice to benefit from the ongoing support they require for sustenance from their citizenry (Kılıç et The network theory of the benefits weaker countries might obtain from complying with the social rules of stronger nations is embedded in the institutional theory (Robertson et al, 2021). Thus, developing countries establishing education intervention funding agents such as TETFUND would derive legitimate benefits from the international education intervention framework's institutional network (Robertson et al, 2021).…”

“…According to institutional proponents, organizations and society must strictly adhere to societal expectations of an acceptable practice to benefit from the ongoing support they require for sustenance from their citizenry (Kılıç et The network theory of the benefits weaker countries might obtain from complying with the social rules of stronger nations is embedded in the institutional theory (Robertson et al, 2021). Thus, developing countries establishing education intervention funding agents such as TETFUND would derive legitimate benefits from the international education intervention framework's institutional network (Robertson et al, 2021). The institutional theory allows the researcher to comprehend why countries such as Nigeria would emulate and conform to acceptable norms of education intervention practices in the developed countries for their intervention fund agencies due to the perceived benefits of those funds to their beneficiaries and stakeholders (Li et al, 2021).…”

“…al., 2021;Robertson et al, 2021). A region's exposure to bilateral education programs and trade exchanges exposes nations to imitations of best practices in human capital development(Kılıç et al, 2021;Robertson et al, 2021) (Li et al, 2021).…”

Sensitizing the social-ecosystems of outdoor sport environments: A comprehensive framework

“…These are just some questions that inquiries on the sport ecology of outdoor spaces are worth exploring in order to construct a more sensitized social-ecosystem perspective. Alas, the prevailing institutional logics and economic instrumentalism (Robertson et al, 2021 ; Chen, 2022 ; Stenling and Fahlén, 2022 ), which are principally shaping the sport management discourse, do not seem to be receptive of alternative approaches to measurement, evaluation, policy, and strategizing. They actually constrain the development of transdisciplinary approaches that are necessary to appreciate thoroughly the complex relationship between sport and the environment.…”