Suchergebnisse

Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Privatization in principle and practice

The relationship between the temporary and the permanent is a central issue in studies of temporary organizing. Recent research highlights that projects, as key forms of temporary organizations, both constitute and are constituted by their wider institutional contexts. However, there is still a lack of more detailed understanding of the actors and their activities through which projects produce and advance institutional change. To address this issue, we draw on extensive fieldwork to study the activities that constitute establishment of the Innovation University. This endeavour gained the status of a spearhead project and advanced nationwide university reform in one northern European country. Our central contribution is two-fold. We sediment a more robust approach to institutions within project literature by defining them as widely shared beliefs and practices that actors enact and (re)produce through their various activities. On this basis, we develop a model of an institutional project for regulative change and show that it is more parallel and multiplex and less sequential in nature than existing studies might convey. Our model also creates new understanding of the role of the 'lock-ins' shaped by projects to promote regulative change and casts light on the temporal linkages and temporal boundary objects in institutional projects. In closing, we discuss several future avenues for research in both project literature and institutional theory.

Research in the sociology of science has increasingly begun to acknowledge the role that external influences play in shaping the boundaries and content of science. However, a scarce understanding still prevails with regard to the role of peripheral, popular movements in the emergence of scientific fields, and of professional fields in general.Through their attention to boundary work, scientific fields also provide a fruitful yet neglected context to study how actors engage in efforts to alter frames in order to adjust and negotiate community boundaries. This qualitative study of the emergence of the US nanotechnology field from 1986 to 2005 makes several contributions to knowledge about these issues. First, our study shows that peripheral, popular movements open up avenues for scientific fields by generating understanding and receptivity for novel ideas through story-telling, which gives rise to their cultural embeddedness. Second, we find that by capitalizing on such culturally embedded concepts, scientists make science particularly vulnerable to external interventions, limiting the effect of boundary work. Third, the study shows how usually persistent hierarchies between communities are tested, challenged, and reproduced in an emerging professional field. The study therefore provides understanding on how actors in the key communities are able to use framing to negotiate their positions and community boundaries within a complex, emergent field.

Multinational organizations increasingly face strong resistance to their marketentry by some local audiences, reflecting growing ideological divisions andpopulism in societies. We turned to the organizational stigma literature for theconceptual tools and vocabulary to uncover why multinationals cansimultaneously be praised by some audiences and tainted by others.Drawing on a longitudinal explanatory case study of an unsuccessful marketentry, we develop a process model of organizational stigmatization in aforeign market entry. Our model explains how and why some local audiencesmay taint the core attributes of an entry-seeking organization and its marketentry process, while others may embrace the foreign entrant. We alsointroduce the notion of cross-border stigma translation where negativeaudience evaluations are amplified across geographic contexts. A focus oncompeting local audiences is important for understanding the generativemechanisms of the liability of foreignness and liability of origin and how tomanage them. Our study grounds a conversation on the processes andmechanisms of organizational stigmatization that may cause permanentliabilities to foreign organizations ; Peer reviewed

Executives use market labels to position their firms within market categories. Yet this activity has been given scarce attention in the extant literature that widely assumes that market labels are simple, prescribed classification brackets that accurately represent firms' characteristics. By examining how and why executives use the nanotechnology label, we uncover three strategies: claiming, disassociating, and hedging. Comparing these strategies to firms' technological capabilities, we find that capabilities alone do not explain executives' label use. Instead, the data show that these strategies are driven by executives' aspiration to symbolically influence their firms' market categorization. In particular, executives' perception of the label's ambiguity, their avoidance of perceived credibility gaps, and their assessment of the label's signaling value shape their labeling strategies. In contrast to extant research, which suggests that executives should aim for coherence, we find that many executives hedge their affiliation with a nascent market label. Thus, our study shows that in ambiguous contexts, noncommitment to a market category may be a particularly prevalent strategy.

This study finds that it is possible for organizations in emerging categories to resist stigmatization through discursive reconstruction of the central and distinctive characteristics of the category in question. We examined the emerging market of organic farming in Finland and discovered how resistance to stigmatization was both an internal and an external power struggle in the organic farming community. Over time, the label of organic farming was manipulated and the practice of farming was associated with more conventional and familiar contexts, while the stigma was diverted at the same time to biodynamic farming. We develop a process model for removal of stigma from a nascent category through stigma diversion. We find that stigma diversion forces the core community to (re)define themselves in relation to the excluded community and the mainstream. We also discuss how notoriety can be an individuating phenomenon that helps categorical members conduct identity work and contributes to stigma removal.