Organizational Fields as Mnemonic Communities

Abstract

Network Structure and Collective Cognition The concept of the organizational field is central to organization theory. Despite its influence, the construct suffers from a lack of precise definition. Most theorists accept structuration as the core dynamic through which fields emerge (Scott, 1994) and, as a result, most definitions of organizational fields contain an element of structure or place, on one hand, and an element of collective meaning or cognition on the other. These two components of organizational fields-place and meaning-have an uncomfortable relationship with each other. Although most definitions of fields acknowledge that organizational fields are simultaneously spatial patterns of interaction of participants and their common meaning systems, there is no clear understanding of how a shared network structure can lead to collective cognition. As a result, most empirical applications of organizational fields tend to emphasize one element (structure or cognition) over the other. We seek to address this issue by introducing time, history and, most importantly, memory as the bridging mechanism that connects the structural and cognitive elements of organizational fields. We observe that institutional theorists have traditionally adopted the metaphor of fields as either geographical or symbolic structures, but largely neglected the understanding that fields are also temporal structures. As Barley and Tolbert (1997, p. 99) have argued, institutions are "historical accretions of past practices and understandings that set conditions on actions" as they "gradually acquire the moral and ontological status of taken-for-granted facts" (emphasis added). We apply this insight to the construct of fields, arguing that fields are

The comparative institutional analysis of energy transitions

“…This unfolding and change, however, is strongly connected to the issue of how actors-non-renewable energy generators and (non)corporate new entrants-make sense of the past. In consequence, further research has to take the role of collective memory into account (Coraiola et al, 2018), which seems to mediate transformation skills and relational distance.…”

History as Organizing: Uses of the Past in Organization Studies

“…Rather the production and dissemination of history occurs across a broad range of actors, both individual—i.e., historians, curators, archivists—and collective—i.e., museums, historical societies, media (the History Channel, National Geographic ), historical re-enactment groups, corporations and nation states. History is performed in a wide variety of mnemonic communities (Zerubavel, 2012) that constitute a diverse array of mnemonic fields (Coraiola, Suddaby, & Foster, 2018). Seen in this way, the performance of history is integral to how any actor navigates their world and academic history emerges only secondarily as involving a reflexive and professionalized set of practices by which scholars interpret and use the past in the present (Carr, 1991).…”

“…The role of history in the organization of mnemonic communities has been most extensively studied in the context of the formation of modern nations (Anderson, 1983), and to a lesser extent of social groups (Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1983). But contemporary work in organizations has increasingly emphasized the performative role of history for organizing fields (Coraiola et al, 2018; Wadhwani, 2018), categories (Hansen, 2018; Khaire & Wadhwani, 2010), and organizations (Anteby & Molnár, 2013; Hatch & Schultz, 2017; Ravasi et al, forthcoming).…”

MNE post‐entry institutional strategies in emerging markets: An organizational field position perspective

“…Indeed, Phillips & Tracey (2009, p. 107) critique this standpoint by arguing that seeing an MNEs as "being a member in a number of geographically separate fields … does not lead to the conclusion that [such actors] are members of none." Rather, it is the action of the local subsidiary that is critical to corporate institutional strategies in local contexts (Hillman & Wan, 2005;Meyer & Peng, 2016; 1 Although organizational fields can share with networks and clusters the element of structural interactions, they differ from these concepts in also being constituted by shared meaning systems or cognition (Coraiola et al, 2018). Regnér & Edman, 2014).…”