LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Burke, Gary; Knight, Louise (2011)
Languages: English
Types: Unknown
Subjects:
Adopting an institutional approach from organization studies, this paper explores the role of key actors on “purposeful governance for sustainability” (Smith, Voss et al. 2010: 444) through the case of smart metering in the UK. Institutions are enduring patterns in social life, reflected in identities, routines, rules, shared meanings and social relations, which enable, and constrain, the beliefs and behaviours of individual and collective actors within a field (Thornton and Ocasio 2008). Large-scale external initiatives designed to drive regime-level change prompt ‘institutional entrepreneurs’ to perform ‘institutional work’ – “purposive action aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions” (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). Organization scholars are giving increasing attention to ‘field-configuring events’ (FCEs) which provide social spaces for diverse organizational actors to come together to collectively shape socio-technical pathways (Lampel and Meyer 2008). Our starting point for this exploratory study is that FCEs can offer important insights to the dynamics, politics and governance of sustainability transitions. Methodologically, FCEs allow us to observe and “link field evolution at the macro-level with individual action at the micro-level” (Lampel and Meyer, 2008: 1025). We examine the work of actors during a series of smart metering industry forums over a three-year period (industry presentations [n= 77] and panel discussions [n= 16]). The findings reveal new insights about how institutional change unfolds, alongside technological transitions, in ways that are partial and aligned with the interests of powerful incumbents whose voices are frequently heard at FCEs. The paper offers three contributions. First, the study responds to calls for more research examining FCEs and the role they play in transforming institutional fields. Second, the emergent findings extend research on institutional work by advancing our understanding of a specific site of institutional work, namely a face-to-face inter-organizational arena. Finally, in line with the research agenda for innovation studies and sustainability transitions elaborated by Smith et al (2010), the paper illustrates how actors in a social system respond to, translate, and enact interventions designed to promote industrial transformation, ultimately shaping the sustainability transition pathway.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • DECC (2009a). Energy metering: A consultation on smart metering for electricity and gas. BERR Publications, London.
    • DECC (2009b). Towards a smarter future: Government response to the consultation on electricity and gas smart metering. BERR Publications, London.
    • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American sociological review, 48(2): 147-160.
    • Garud, R. (2008). Conferences as venues for the configuration of emerging organizational fields: the case of cochlear implants. Journal of Management Studies, 45(6): 1061-1088.
    • Garud, R., Jain, S., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2002). Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 196-214.
    • Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3): 399-417.
    • Geels, F.W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39(4): 495-510.
    • Gioia, D. A. And Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal 12(6): 433.
    • Glaser, B. and A. Strauss (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, Aldine.
    • Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. 1959. New York: Anchor.
    • Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2010). Discourse, Field-Configuring Events, and change in Organizations and Institutional Fields: Narratives of DDT and the Stockholm Convention. The Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1365-1392.
    • Hargrave, T. and A. Van de Ven (2006). A collective action model of institutional innovation. Academy of Management Review 31(4): 864-888.
    • HM Government (2006). The Energy Challenge Energy Review Report 2006. Department of Trade and Industry. The Stationery Office, London.
    • HM Government (2007). Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy May 2007. Department of Trade and Industry. The Stationery Office, London.
    • Hoffman, A. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4): 351-371.
    • Lampel, J., & Meyer, A. (2008). Field-configuring events as structuring mechanisms: How conferences, ceremonies, and trade shows constitute new technologies, industries, and markets. Guest editors introduction. Journal of Management Studies, 45(6): 1025-1035.
    • Lawrence, T. and N. Phillips (2004). From Moby Dick to Free Willy: Macro-cultural discourse and institutional entrepreneurship in emerging institutional fields. Organization 11(5): 689- 711.
    • Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. Lawrence & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 215-253.). London: Sage.
    • Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Introduction: theorizing and studying institutional work. Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations: 1-27.
    • Maguire, S., C. Hardy, and Lawrence, T. (2004). Institutional Entrepreneurship in Emerging Fields: HIV/AIDS Treatment Advocacy in Canada. The Academy of Management journal 47(5): 657-679.
    • McInerney, P. (2008). Showdown at Kykuit: Field-configuring events as loci for conventionalizing accounts. Journal of Management Studies, 45(6): 1089-1116.
    • Meyer, A. D., Gaba, V., & Colwell, K. A. (2005). Organizing far from equilibrium: Nonlinear change in organizational fields. Organization Science: 456-473.
    • Munir, K., & Phillips, N. (2005). The birth of the Kodak moment: Institutional entrepreneurship and the adoption of new technologies. Organization Studies, 26(11): 1665-1687.
    • Nelson, P., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. 2004. Discourse and Institutions. The Academy of Management Review, 29(4): 635-652.
    • Ofgem (2006). Domestic Metering Innovation: Next Steps. Ref. 107/06. 30 June 2006.
    • Oliver, A., & Montgomery, K. (2008). Using field-configuring events for sense-making: a cognitive network approach. Journal of Management Studies, 45(6): 1147-1167.
    • Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics: Critical analysis for social and individual psychology. London, Routledge.
    • Raven, R. P. J. M. (2006). Towards alternative trajectories? Reconfigurations in the Dutch electricity regime. Research Policy, 35(4): 581-595.
    • Scott, W. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests: Sage Publications.
    • Seo, M., & Creed, W. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 222-247.
    • Smith, A., J. P. Voss, et al. (2010). "Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges." Research Policy 39(4): 435-448.
    • Steering Group of the STRN. 2010. A Mission Statement and Research Agenda for the Sustainability Transitions Research Network. The Netherlands: Sustainability Transitions Research Network.
    • Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London, Sage Publications.
    • Thornton, P. and W. Ocasio (2008). Institutional logics. Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin-Andersson and R. Suddaby. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage: 99-129.
    • Van de Ven, A. and M. Poole (1995). Explaining Development and Change in Organizations. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 510 (531).
    • Verbong, G., & Geels, F. (2010). Exploring sustainability transitions in the electricity sector with socio-technical pathways. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8): 1214-1221.
    • Zietsma, C. and T. Lawrence (2010). Institutional Work in the Transformation of an Organizational Field: The Interplay of Boundary Work and Practice Work. Administrative Science Quarterly 55(2): 189-221.
    • Zilber, T. (2007). Stories and the discursive dynamics of institutional entrepreneurship: The case of Israeli high-tech after the bubble. Organization studies, 28(7): 1035-1054.
    • Zilber, T. (2009). Institutional maintenance as narrative acts. In T. Lawrence, R. Suddaby & B. Leca (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 205-235). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    • Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42(5): 726-743.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article