The purpose of this article is to understand and illustrate how the development of theories is influenced in part through dominant paradigms, in part through citation patterns, and in part through the norms of scientific writing. An example that is developed is the use of deconstruction to illustrate how institutional theory, with its interpretive beginnings, has become a structuralist positivist vehicle. This is examined in the context of the flourishing recent debate in the field of organizational studies with regard to the relevance of this field and the consensus, or lack thereof, that exists within it. After developing the deconstructive reading of a classic article in institutional theory, the author discusses the implications for the field of organizational studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agger, B.
(1991). Critical theory, poststructuralism, postmodernism: Their sociological relevance. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 105-132.
2.
Berger, P. L.
, & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday Anchor.
3.
Burrell, G.
, & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann.
4.
Calás, M. B.
, & Smircich, L. (1991). Voicing seduction to silence leadership. Organization Studies12(4), 567-602.
5.
D'Aunno, T.
, Sutton, R. I., & Price, R. H. (1991). Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments: A study of drug abuse treatment units. Academy of Management Journal34(3), 636-661.
6.
Daft, R.
, & Lewin, A. (1990). Editorial. Organization Science, 1(1), 1-9.
7.
Derrida, J.
(1976). Of grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
8.
Derrida, J.
(1988). Limited Inc.Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
9.
DiMaggio, P. J.
, & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
10.
Evered, R.
, & Louis, M. R. (1981). Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: Inquiry from the inside and inquiry from the outside, Academy of Management Review, 6(3), 385-395.
11.
Gephart, R. P., Jr.
(1986). Deconstructing the defense for quantification in social science: A content analysis of journal articles on parametric strategy. Qualitative Sociology, 9(2), 126-144.
12.
Gioia, D. A.
, & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 584-602.
13.
Hamilton, D. P.
(1990). Publishing by- and for?-the numbers. Science, 250, 1331-1332.
14.
Hamilton, D. P.
(1991). Research papers: Who's uncited now?Science, 251, 25.
15.
Kilduff, M.
(1993). Deconstructing organizations. Academy of Management Review, 18(1),13-31.
16.
Kuhn, T. S.
(1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Lee, A. S.
(1991). Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organization Science, 2(4), 342-365.
18.
Luthans, F.
, & Davis, T.R.V. (1982). An idiographic approach to organizational behaviour research: The use of single-case experimental designs and direct measures. Academy of Management Review, 7(3), 380-391.
19.
Martin, J.
(1990). Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression of gender conflict in organizations. Organization Science, 1(4), 339-359.
20.
Meyer, J. W.
, & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
21.
Meyer, J. W.
, Scott, R. W., & Deal, T. E. (1981). Institutional and technical sources of organizational structure: Explaining the structure of educational organizations. In J. W. Meyer & W. R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality (pp. 45-70). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
22.
Meyer, J. W.
, Scott, W. R., & Strang, D. (1987). Centralization, fragmentation, and school district complexity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 186-201.
23.
Morgan, G.
, & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management Review, 5(4), 491-500.
24.
Mumby, D. K.
, & Putnam, L. L. (1992). The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 465-486.
25.
Oliver, C.
(1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145-179.
26.
Pfeffer, J.
(1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599-620.
27.
Ritzer, G.
(1975). Sociology: A multiple paradigm science. American Sociologist, 10.
28.
Schutz, A.
(1962). Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action; and Concept and theory formation in the social sciences. In M. Natanson (Ed.), Collected papers I: The problem of social reality (pp. 1-65). The Hague: M. Nijhoff.
29.
Scott, W. R.
(1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 493-511.
30.
Selznick, P.
(1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
31.
Social Sciences Citation Index. (1976-1993). Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information.
32.
Tolbert, P. S.
, & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reforms, 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 22-39.
33.
Zucker, L. G.
(1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42, 726-743.
34.
Zucker, L. G.
(1983). Organizations as institutions. Research in the Sociology of Organizations2, 1-47.
35.
Zucker, L. G.
(1987). Institutional theories of organizations. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443-464.
