Institutional Work in the Transformation of an Organizational Field: The Interplay of Boundary Work and Practice Work

Abstract

We draw on an in-depth longitudinal analysis of conflict over harvesting practices and decision authority in the British Columbia coastal forest industry to understand the role of institutional work in the transformation of organizational fields. We examine the work of actors to create, maintain, and disrupt the practices that are considered legitimate within a field (practice work) and the boundaries between sets of individuals and groups (boundary work), and the interplay of these two forms of institutional work in effecting change. We find that actors' boundary work and practice work operate in recursive configurations that underpin cycles of institutional innovation, conflict, stability, and restabilization. We also find that transitions between these cycles are triggered by combinations of three conditions: (1) the state of the boundaries, (2) the state of practices, and (3) the existence of actors with the capacity to undertake the boundary and practice work of a different institutional process. These findings contribute to untangling the paradox of embedded agency—how those subject to the institutions in a field can effect changes in them. We also contribute to an understanding of the processes and mechanisms that drive changes in the institutional lifecycle.

What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability

“…An empirical focus on niche actors, and 'the melee of real-life dynamics, interactions, and of everyday practice' (Leach et al, 2007: 24;Hughes, 1983), soon indicates why any protections secured often tend to be incomplete or insufficient, from the perspective of niche advocates and strategic managers, and as a result have consequences for the development of socio-technical alternatives that fall short of their ideal (Smith, 2007;Romijn et al, 2010). Analysing and theorising the dynamics of niche-based approaches to sustainability transitions has to be complemented with an insider perspective that emphasises the embedded agency of actors involved in both niche construction and regime reproduction (Garud et al, 2010;(Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010;Smith and Stirling, 2007). Moreover, such a perspective also has to be politically informed, because, ultimately, niche agency results from advocates within different institutional positions and unequal access to resources influencing powerful actors more usually associated with incumbent regimes.…”

“…To understand these processes, we note how recent literature in institutional change emphasises the significance of discursive strategies and narratives. That literature addresses a challenge of embedded agency similar to the one concerning us here: one in which change agents are trying to influence a situation in which actors' thoughts and actions are constrained by incumbent institutions (or, in our case, regimes) (Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010).…”

“…Hence, the second part of the paper will also address the politics involved, with a particular focus on the role of political narratives in empowerment. The propositions in this part of our analysis are informed by insights from recent literature on institutional change (Phillips et al, 2004;Hardy and Maguire, 2010;Lawrence et al, 2009;Battilana et al, 2009;Garud et al, 2010;Zietsma and Lawrence, 2010;Hargrave and van den Ven, 2006) and network governance (Kooiman, 2003;Jessop, 1998Jessop, , 2003 Hence, there are two analytical questions guiding our discussion:…”

What It Takes to Lead Sustainability Transitions from the Bottom-Up: Strategic Interactions of Grassroots Ecopreneurs

“…First, it builds on discussions about agency within and about institutions [30,33]. A second root comes from discussions on practice [34,35], drawing attention to how institutions are expressed in embodied, incarnated forms. A third root comes from literature on boundaries.…”

Boundary work and tax regulation: A Bourdieusian view

“…Boundaries are important facets of social life (Zeitsma & Lawrence, 2010) and significant objects of scholarly attention. They have been a prevalent feature in studies of professions and knowledge; for example, between occupational scope leading to jurisdictional struggles (Abbott, 1988;Dezalay & Garth, 1995), between lay and expert knowledge (Kerr et al, 2007), and in the allocation of organisational tasks (Llewellyn, 1998).…”