The Evolution of Issue Interpretation within Organizational Fields: Actor Positions, Framing Trajectories, and Field Settlement

Litrico, Jean-Baptiste; David, Robert J.

doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0156

Cited by 72 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 123 publications

(186 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, future research can identify the conditions under which settlements become more durable and enforced over time, thus becoming institutionalized and effecting long-term structural changes in a field; rather than becoming decoupled from the actual practices of a field, thus gradually reverting the field back to its pre-settlement stage. While previous research has demonstrated that new field-level settlements are crucial change outcomes in their own right (Litrico & David, 2017;Helms & Oliver, 2015;cf. Rao & Kenney, 2008), it is also important to explain when and how they may become institutionalized into the patterns of regular relationships and taken-for-granted meaning systems that constitute field structures (Greenwood et al 2011;Scott, 1994).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…First, I contribute to issue-based approaches to institutional fields (e.g. Hoffman, 1999;2001;Meyer and Hollerer, 2010;Litrico and David, 2017) by providing a model explaining when an issue is more likely to trigger field change. While previous research has established that issue frames are consequential for field change, this paper extends this general insight by specifying the content of two salient issue frames and by showing that the effects of these issue frames on field change are crucially contingent on the field structure in which issue framing occurs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When does an issue trigger change in a field? A comparative approach to issue frames, field structures and types of field change

Furnari

2017

Human Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Furnari, S. (2018). When does an issue trigger change in a field? A comparative approach to issue frames, field structures and types of field change. This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Permanent repository link: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/19485/ Link to published version: http://dx. AbstractPrevious research has shown that institutional fields evolve around issues, but has devoted less attention to explain why certain issues trigger substantial field-level changes while others remain largely inconsequential. In this paper, I argue that the extent to which an issue is likely to trigger field change and the type of field change triggered depend on the structure of the field and the ways in which the issue is framed. I develop a model linking two types of issue frames (adversarial vs collaborative issue frames) with two types of field structures (centralized vs fragmented). The model explains how the likelihood of field change and type of field change vary across four configurations of these issue frames and field structures. In particular, I highlight four types of field change that entail different re-distribution of power within a field (weakening vs reinforcing the field's elite; aligning vs polarizing fragmented actors). Overall, I contribute a much called-for comparative approach to institutional fields, explaining how the effects of issue frames on field change vary across different fields. KeywordsFraming, institutional change, institutional field, institutional theory, institutional work "The aviation industry will tomorrow make a dramatic pledge to slash carbon dioxide emissions in half by 2050….The British Airways chief executive, Willie Walsh, will unveil an agreement between airlines, airports and aircraft companies to cut emissions to 50% below 2005 levels by 2050. Walsh warned earlier this year that [this agreement] would add around £3bn per year to industry costs…" (The Guardian, September 21st, 2009). (2017) show how the issue of carbon emissions transformed the field of civil aviation from a valued icon of globalization to a visible symbol of environmental degradation in a surprisingly short time (p. 990). In fact, this issue became so prominent to prompt key field actors, such as airlines and airports, to change the existing "rules of the game" and reach a new "field settlement" -i.e. a common framework of action to deal with the issue (Litrico and David, 2017: 988)-embodied by the emission cuts' collective agreement described above. This example highlights how some issues can catalyze enough support to break the "iron cage" (Di Maggio and Powell, 1983) in which organizations routinely operate within their field, inducing them to change the otherwise stable normative and cognitive frameworks underlying existing field settlements (Scott, 1994: 207). Litrico and DavidYet, for every issue that succeeds in triggering substantial change in a field, there are many other issues that remain largely inconsequenti...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

When does an issue trigger change in a field? A comparative approach to issue frames, field structures and types of field change

Furnari

2017

Human Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As our theoretical framework and results indicate, hybridity may be a viable option when competing frames are dissimilar and compatible. 14 By identifying the conditions under which framing contests may lead to hybrid organizational identities, we address the discrepancy in prior research that has argued either for or against hybridization as a resolution for competing frames (Litrico & David, 2017;York, Hargrave, & Pacheco, 2016), and we enlighten scholarly understanding of the conditions under which forms of compromise, including the 14 Although hybridity may not be an attractive founding strategy when stakeholders advance frames that are dissimilar and incompatible, supplemental analyses showed that such frames did not negatively influence hybrid-venture survival, suggesting that hybridity may provide performance benefits to entrepreneurs in the midst of competing, incompatible framing contests. market entry of hybrid organizations, may be possible (Battilana & Lee, 2014;Lee, Ramus, & Vaccaro, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From farms to fuel tanks: Stakeholder framing contests and entrepreneurship in the emergent U.S. biodiesel market

Hiatt

Carlos

2018

Strategic Management Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary Although scholarship has demonstrated that market categories offer important signals to entrepreneurs about which goods and services are valued, little research has considered how entrepreneurs make sense of and exploit opportunities when contestation over category meaning persists. Using the emergent U.S. biodiesel market as a context, we present a framework to explain how the salience of different stakeholder frames shapes entrepreneurs' perceptions of market opportunities and influences their market‐entry strategies. By showing how framing contests affect entrepreneurial outcomes, this study illuminates the underlying cognitive mechanisms that impact market meaning and offers important implications for the literatures on entrepreneurship, market‐category evolution, framing contests, and grand challenges. Managerial Summary Entrepreneurs entering new markets must consider how their products or services create value for customers. What customers value, however, is often shaped by competition between different stakeholders who seek to define problems and appropriate solutions. We argue and find that competing stakeholders influence what becomes valued in the market and shape the technologies and products developed by entrepreneurs. From the perspective of those promoting new markets, market growth requires a balancing act between maintaining control over market definitions and attracting new customers. In growing a new market, entrepreneurs and market pioneers may unintentionally attract other stakeholders who seek to alter or redefine market meanings, which can drive demand away from initial producers, foster the development and adoption of unforeseen technologies, and facilitate market entry of diverse organizations.

show abstract

“…When McAdam and Scott (2005) initially discussed the notion of field settlement, they suggested that there is likely to be a range of possible settlements whereby small settlements may ultimately culminate in profound institutional changes. Indeed, recent work examining field settlements has argued that they often serve as an indicator for further substantive action (Furnari, 2018;Litrico & David, 2017;Zietsma, Groenewegen, Logue, & Hinings, 2017). Yet, the settlement around responsible investment that we observed in this case appeared to reinforce the status quo rather that spur substantive action.…”

Section: Ambiguous Frames and Field Settlementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Frame Ambiguity on Field-Level Change

Feront

Bertels

2019

Organization Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While prior work suggests that ambiguous frames may be helpful in promoting institutional change, we still know little about their impact on field-level change. Drawing on contemporary accounts of organizational fields as structured around issues, we investigate the rise of responsible investment in South Africa, examining how proponents’ use of frame ambiguity drew in a broader range of field actors but ultimately stalled the institutionalization of new meanings and practices in the investment field. Our study suggests that to promote change, proponents should seek a balance between enough ambiguity to invite participation, and enough specification to regulate the understanding of the problem, promote the experimentation of new practices, and clarify the impetus for action. We also contribute to the conceptualization of field settlement by distinguishing among rhetorical, incremental, and disruptive field settlements, highlighting that field settlements are not always indicators of further substantive change processes in a field.

show abstract

The Evolution of Issue Interpretation within Organizational Fields: Actor Positions, Framing Trajectories, and Field Settlement

Cited by 72 publications

References 123 publications

When does an issue trigger change in a field? A comparative approach to issue frames, field structures and types of field change

When does an issue trigger change in a field? A comparative approach to issue frames, field structures and types of field change

From farms to fuel tanks: Stakeholder framing contests and entrepreneurship in the emergent U.S. biodiesel market

The Impact of Frame Ambiguity on Field-Level Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About