Suchergebnisse

This article focusses on an important but often overlooked dimension of aggregation in organizational research, the temporal dimension. As more researchers begin to appreciate the dynamic quality of their subject matter, longitudinal studies will become more common. Lacking fully developed research paradigms, however, such studies are likely to encounter a number of problems. In this paper, three particular problems, the interval problem, the differential period problem, and the morphogenetic problem, are discussed in the context of two concrete studies. The kinds of issues each problem poses are identified and possible solutions are proposed.

While there is a growing awareness in the field of organizational sociology of the need for longitudinal research, there are few exemplars to serve as guides for those interested in the design of such research. Written to provide an overview of issues in this increasingly important area, this paper begins by developing a working definition of longitudinal organizational research by examining the kinds of advantages that are generally held to derive from it. A distinction is made between research in and research on organizations, and a number of issues in the design of both sorts of longitudinal research are identified. Examples are provided through discussion of an ongoing project currently moving from a cross-sectional to a longitudinal design.

As of July 1, 2010, the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of the Holy Spirit (UHS) has a single Department of Economics. However, in the seven prior years, there were two economics departments, one that was resolutely mainstream and the other that was just as resolutely heterodox. What accounts for this unusual organizational arrangement? We show that this arrangement was part of a protracted conflict about the kind of economics that befits the Catholic identity of UHS that resulted, ultimately, in a full embrace of mainstream economics in July 2010. We draw on and amend Oliver's (1991) typology of organizational responses to institutional processes and investigate why and how UHS went from deliberate avoidance to full acquiescence to mainstream economics. Our analysis suggests that while organizations may be compelled to adapt to dominant norms, as institutional theorists contend, the process of adaptation involves a variety of conflicting moves and counter moves that engage identity and power and that require forceful leadership to resolve.

As of July 1, 2010, the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of the Holy Spirit (UHS) has a single Department of Economics. However, in the seven prior years, there were two economics departments, one that was resolutely mainstream and the other that was just as resolutely heterodox. What accounts for this unusual organizational arrangement? We show that this arrangement was part of a protracted conflict about the kind of economics that befits the Catholic identity of UHS that resulted, ultimately, in a full embrace of mainstream economics in July 2010. We draw on and amend Oliver's (1991) typology of organizational responses to institutional processes and investigate why and how UHS went from deliberate avoidance to full acquiescence to mainstream economics. Our analysis suggests that while organizations may be compelled to adapt to dominant norms, as institutional theorists contend, the process of adaptation involves a variety of conflicting moves and counter moves that engage identity and power and that require forceful leadership to resolve.