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

Abstract

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...

Constructing institutional performance: a multi-level framing perspective on performance measurement and management

“…It would also seem worthwhile to extend such research to encompass theoretical comparisons across institutional fields. Comparative research across institutional fields is still scarce (Micelotta et al 2017, Furnari, 2018 and has only started to feature in the PMM literature (Chiwamit et al 2014, Rautiainen et al 2017. However, such research has considerable potential to further systematic theory development regarding how meanings that evolve in institutional fields (Purdy et al 2018).…”

“…In advancing a multi-level perspective, that is attentive to the socio-political dimensions of framing, I follow an emerging stream of institutional research , Chreim 2006, Ansari et al 2013, Meyer and Höllerer 2010, Jonsson and Lounsbury 2017, Furnari 2018) building on the social movement literature and, especially, Snow et al's (1986) seminal work on frame alignment. By frame alignment Snow et al (1986) referred to the extent to which the frames mobilised by particular actors are congruent with the frames enacted by and guiding the actions of other actors in specific social contexts.…”

“…Instead, different social actors will continue to enact different frames (Gray et al 2015). This may, in turn, perpetuate a state of institutional complexity by preserving the integrity of competing constituency demands (Polzer et al 2017, Furnari 2018.…”

“…Several institutional theorists have come to see framing, defined as the process through which meanings take shape and produce more or less shared 2 Such constituencies can be thought of as the key audiences from which organisations need to seek legitimacy (Deephouse andSuchman 2008, Bitektine andHaack 2015) and are typically made up of distinct sets of social actors with competing or overlapping demands on organisations in an institutional field (Kraatz andBlock 2008, Wooten andHoffman 2008). conceptions of social realities, as a central aspect of institutionalisation , Fiss and Zajac 2006, George et al 2006, Gray et al 2015, Furnari 2018, Jonsson and Lounsbury 2017, Purdy et al 2018. I extend this body of research by examining the framing of institutional performance as a process that is both fuelled by institutional complexity, attributable to the prevalence of heterogeneous and competing constituency demands, and that contributes to the maintenance and reduction of such complexity over time.…”

The Impact of Frame Ambiguity on Field-Level Change

“…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.…”