Organization Science
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


ORGANIZATION SCIENCE
Vol. 16, No. 4, July-August 2005, pp. 332-343
DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0137
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Davis, G. F.
Right arrow Articles by Marquis, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content

Prospects for Organization Theory in the Early Twenty-First Century: Institutional Fields and Mechanisms

Gerald F. Davis, Christopher Marquis

Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1234
Harvard Business School, Morgan Hall 312, Boston, Massachusetts 02163

gfdavis{at}umich.edu
cmarquis{at}hbs.edu

This paper argues that research in organization theory has seen a shift in orientation from paradigm-driven work to problem-driven work since the late 1980s. A number of paradigms for the study of organizations were elaborated during the mid-1970s, including transaction cost economics, resource dependence theory, organizational ecology, new institutional theory, and agency theory in financial economics. These approaches reflected the dominant trends of the large corporations of their time: increasing concentration, diversification, and bureaucratization. However, subsequent shifts in organizational boundaries, the increased use of alliances and network forms, and the expanding role of financial markets in shaping organizational decision making all make normal science driven by the internally derived questions from these paradigms less fruitful. Instead, we argue that problem-driven work that uses mechanism-based theorizing and research that takes the field rather than the organization as the unit of analysis are the most appropriate styles of organizational research under conditions of major economic change—such as our own era. This sort of work is best exemplified by various studies under the rubric of institutional theory in the past 15 years, which are reviewed here.

Key Words: organization theory; social mechanisms; organizational fields; paradigms



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
European Journal of International RelationsHome page
K. Dingwerth and P. Pattberg
World Politics and Organizational Fields: The Case of Transnational Sustainability Governance
European Journal of International Relations, December 1, 2009; 15(4): 707 - 743.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
OrganizationHome page
A. L. Wright
Domination in Organizational Fields: It's Just Not Cricket
Organization, November 1, 2009; 16(6): 855 - 885.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Organizational Research MethodsHome page
A. M. Grant and T. D. Wall
The Neglected Science and Art of Quasi-Experimentation: Why-to, When-to, and How-to Advice for Organizational Researchers
Organizational Research Methods, October 1, 2009; 12(4): 653 - 686.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Am Educ Res JHome page
M. N. Bastedo
Conflicts, Commitments, and Cliques in the University: Moral Seduction as a Threat to Trustee Independence
American Educational Research Journal, June 1, 2009; 46(2): 354 - 386.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Management InquiryHome page
I. Marti, D. Etzion, and B. Leca
Theoretical Approaches for Studying Corporations, Democracy, and the Public Good
Journal of Management Inquiry, September 1, 2008; 17(3): 148 - 151.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Organization ScienceHome page
R. V. Aguilera, I. Filatotchev, H. Gospel, and G. Jackson
An Organizational Approach to Comparative Corporate Governance: Costs, Contingencies, and Complementarities
Organization Science, May 1, 2008; 19(3): 475 - 492.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Organization StudiesHome page
M. Jelinek, A. G. L. Romme, and R. J. Boland
Introduction to the Special Issue: Organization Studies as a Science for Design: Creating Collaborative Artifacts and Research
Organization Studies, March 1, 2008; 29(3): 317 - 329.
[PDF]


Home page
Organization ScienceHome page
F. Murray and S. O'Mahony
Exploring the Foundations of Cumulative Innovation: Implications for Organization Science
Organization Science, November 1, 2007; 18(6): 1006 - 1021.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Strategic OrganizationHome page
T. Baker and T. G. Pollock
Making the marriage work: the benefits of strategy's takeover of entrepreneurship for strategic organization
Strategic Organization, August 1, 2007; 5(3): 297 - 312.
[PDF]


Home page
Journal of Management InquiryHome page
R. Khurana and C. Marquis
Diagnosing and Dissolving Our "Translation Gap"
Journal of Management Inquiry, December 1, 2006; 15(4): 406 - 409.
[PDF]


Home page
Strategic OrganizationHome page
M. E. Wooten
Soapbox : Editorial essays: Race and strategic organization
Strategic Organization, May 1, 2006; 4(2): 191 - 199.
[PDF]


Home page
Organization ScienceHome page
A. D. Meyer, V. Gaba, and K. A. Colwell
Organizing Far from Equilibrium: Nonlinear Change in Organizational Fields
Organization Science, September 1, 2005; 16(5): 456 - 473.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Organization ScienceHome page
J. Pfeffer and C. T. Fong
Building Organization Theory from First Principles: The Self-Enhancement Motive and Understanding Power and Influence
Organization Science, July 1, 2005; 16(4): 372 - 388.
[Abstract] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by INFORMS.