How Institutional Logics Matter: A Bottom-Up Exploration

Abstract

Joining recent calls to focus our attention on how institutional logics work on the ground, I offer a critique of current studies of institutional logics that often offer a macro and reified depictions thereof. I suggest that to fully appreciate how institutions matter, we need to complement these studies with a research program that is based on a constructivist ontology, ethnographic methods of inquiry, and use of theories of action. I exemplify this emerging research agenda, and discuss its broader analytical and empirical implications. Copyright © 2017 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Full text

HOW INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS
MATTER: A BOTTOM-UP
EXPLORATION
Tammar B. Zilber
ABSTRACT
Joining recent calls to focus our attention on how institutional logics
work on the ground, I offer a critique of current studies of institutional
logics that often offer a macro and reified depictions thereof. I suggest
that to fully appreciate how institutions matter, we need to complement
these studies with a research program that is based on a constructivist
ontology, ethnographic methods of inquiry, and use of theories of action.
I exemplify this emerging research agenda, and discuss its broader analy-
tical and empirical implications.
Keywords: Institutional logics; constructivist ontology; theories of
action; qualitative methods
How Institutions Matter!
Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 48A, 139157
Copyright r2016 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 0733-558X/doi:10.1108/S0733-558X201600048A005
139
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

Institutional logics “the socially constructed, historical patterns of material
practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals pro-
duce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and
provide meaning to their social reality” (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999) are at
the center of much research in recent years. Their conceptualization seems to
have rejuvenated the landscape of institutional theory (Lounsbury &
Beckman, 2015; Zilber, 2013). The institutional logics perspectives
highlight the integration of structure and agency, the material and the sym-
bolic. It further underscores historical contingencies, past and present of
institutional dynamics, and the need to examine the integration of diverse
social levels.
There is much promise in such a holistic, integrative approach. The
definition of institutional logics, and the theoretical framework offered in
the comprehensive book by Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury (2012),
laid the ground for an extensive research agenda. Thornton et al. (2012)
emphasize that institutional logics work across micro-, meso-, and macro-
social levels; they explicitly state that institutional logics are often decom-
posed and recomposed in creative ways through individual and organiza-
tional action; and they build their institutional logics perspective by
integrating it with insights from psychology and sociology. Their book
and the institutional logics perspective they offer rich, complex, and far
reaching. But theoretical ideas do not materialize by themselves. They
need to be picked up, interpreted, and used by the relevant community
of knowledge. In that process, they often get reduced (Glynn, Barr, &
Dacin, 2000), over-expanded (Greenwood, Hinings, & Whetten, 2014), or
transformed along the way (Mizruchi & Fein, 1999). Thus, in the spirit
of the sociology of knowledge, my focus in this paper is not on the origi-
nal conceptualization developed by Thornton et al. (2012), but AU:1rather
with the ways our field adopted and adapted their ideas, and how it
could be further developed.
Early empirical studies dealt with the change of the institutional order,
and how new logics replace old ones (for a review see Thornton & Ocasio,
2008). More recent studies focus on the complexity of the institutional
order, and the varied ways by which organizations, as unified actors,
respond to this multiplicity (Greenwood, Raynard, Kodeih, Micelotta, &
Lounsbury, 2011). While much research followed the institutional logics
perspective, and while it yielded many important insights, most of it was
quite homogeneous, focusing on a somewhat narrow slice of the compre-
hensive theoretical framework. In particular, while the institutional logics
perspectives highlight the idea that institutional dynamics cross social
140 TAMMAR B. ZILBER
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

levels, most studies of institutional logics have been focusing on the macro
levels the global, the societal, or the organizational field (Hallett &
Ventresca, 2006; Powell & Colyvas, 2008). Only some attention was given
to organizations usually treated as a black box (Greenwood et al., 2014;
Zilber, 2013), and hardly any study was dedicated to individuals and to
their interactions as pivotal to the workings of institutional logics.
From its very beginnings, it seems, the enthusiasm with institutional
logics was accompanied with an effort to overcome its distance from
day-to-day experiences, practices and behaviors of individuals, groups, and
organizations. The specific criticism toward the institutional logics perspec-
tive may be seen as a continuation of sorts of an on-going and broader line
of critique referring to problematics in the study of institutions as inspired
by neo-institutional theory. Whether under the banner of “institutional
work” (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006), “inhabitant institutions” (Hallett &
Ventresca, 2006), “microfoundations of institutions” (Powell & Colyvas,
2008), “coalface institutionalism” (Barley, 2008), a practice perspective on
institutions (Jarzabkowski AU:2, Smets, Bednarek, Burke, & Spee, 2013;
Smets & Jarzabkowski, 2013), French pragmatist sociology (Boltanski and
Thevenot’s convention theory; Brandl, Daudigeos AU:3, Edwards, & Pernkopf-
Konhaeusner, 2014; Bullinger, 2014; Cloutier & Langley, 2013; AU:4Pernkopf-
Konhaeusner, 2014), or “communicative institutionalism” (Cornelissen,
Durand, Fiss, Lammers, & Vaara, 2015), much criticisms have been raised
around the need to re-open the closed black box of institutions and institu-
tional logics.
In line with such critique, in this paper I examine what it takes, analyti-
cally and methodologically, to add the micro aspects of institutions to the
study of institutional logics. Such a research program will allow, I believe,
for appreciating how institutional logics matter, literally so. That is, how
institutional logics work on the ground. Such a research agenda will require
the use of an ontology, research methods and theories that differ from the
ones currently used in the institutional logics literature.
To make my point, I offer a review of the institutional logics perspective,
structured around two recurring tensions and lines of criticism: First, the
problem of exploring institutional logics across diverse social levels; and
second, the problem of treating institutions as reified entities. I then suggest
that in order to understand how institutional logics matter, we need to
broaden our ontological sensibilities, methodological choices, and ways of
theorizing. I conclude by detailing some exemplary studies of institutional
logics on the ground, and outlining some implications of the theoretical
and methodological shift I am calling for.
141Studying Institutional Logics from the Bottom-Up
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

CHALLENGING INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS:
TAKING STOCK
Calling attention to problematics in the institutional logics perspective
grew from different theoretical and analytical traditions that hardly built
on or correspond with each other. Yet, together they underscore a core
concern with the way by which the institutional logic perspective was trans-
lated into empirical explorations of institutions. This concern unfolds
around two main inter-related arguments. First, the tendency to study
institutional logics on the macro (field or organizational) or meso (intra-
organizational) levels ignores or obscures their underlying, micro-level
(individual and interactional) dynamics. To fully appreciate the work of
institutional logics, scholars need to follow them within organizations,
including in interactions among organizations’ members, in situ and in vivo.
Second, and relatedly, the macro-level approach tends to reify institu-
tions thus treating them as quite rigid social patterns, which are hardly
molded by, and negotiated among social actors. Most empirical explora-
tions of institutional logics are quite disconnected from the original formu-
lations of institutional logics, and for that matter of institutional theory
more broadly. In particular, institutional logics are conceived as mainly
given, pre-determined, and hardly changing in their travel through organi-
zations. Focus on institutional logics in social interactions will allow scho-
lars to appreciate not only how people within organizations engage with,
interpret and use institutional logics but how, by doing so, they actually
constitute them.
These two lines of criticism echo tensions that run through the (short)
history of the neo-institutional school. They are not new, but they demand
our renewed attention.
From Macro to Meso to Micro
The debate between micro- and macro-level approaches to institutionaliza-
tion characterized institutional theory from its early renewal in the late
1970s. It is one of the tensions that fueled much of the development of our
understanding of institutional dynamics (Greenwood, Oliver, Shalin, &
Suddaby, 2008). Early and seminal conceptualizations of institutional the-
ory related to micro dynamics of institutions and explored how organiza-
tions tend to adopt to or try to avoid institutional pressures (Barley, 2008).
142 TAMMAR B. ZILBER
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

Yet, by the time the conceptualization of institutional logics caught trac-
tion, empirical studies of institutions “drifted in a macro direction”
(Hallett, 2010, p. 55). Micro-level concerns “disappeared into the back-
ground” (Barley, 2008, p. 491). Most studies of institutional logics relate to
either the field or organizational levels of analysis. The main theoretical
and empirical efforts were dedicated to explicating how (e.g., what are the
conditions under which) certain institutional logics affect macro-level out-
comes, like the diffusion of practices across the field (Goodrick & Reay,
2011; Jones, Maoret, Massa, & Svejenova, 2012; Kennedy & Fiss, 2009;
Lounsbury, 2002, 2007; Marquis & Lounsbury, 2007; Purdy & Gray, 2009;
Rao, Monin, & Durand, 2003; Reay & Hinings, 2005, 2009; Sauermann &
Stephan, 2013; Thornton & Ocasio, 1999; Thornton, 2001, 2002, 2004;
Thornton, Jones, & Kury, 2005).
More recently, and following calls to bring organizations back in
(Hirsch & Lounsbury, 1997; Suddaby, 2010; Suddaby, Elsbach,
Greenwood, Meyer, & Zilber, 2010), the study of institutional logics
expanded to include meso-level, organizational dynamics (Thornton et al.,
2012). In particular, studies demonstrate how the introduction of new
logics, or change in current logics, result in institutional multiplicity
(Greenwood et al., 2011), and how organizations, as unified units of analy-
sis, respond. Studies show that organizational responses to institutional
multiplicity involve the articulation of various organizational dimensions,
structures, and practices. These include organizational identities
(Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Christiansen AU:5& Lounsbury, 2013; Kodeih &
Greenwood, 2014), inner politics (Yu, 2013), decision-making (McPherson
& Sauder, 2013), sense-making (Jason, 2013), group dynamics (Almandoz,
2014; Bjerregaard & Jonasson, 2014), work practices (Smets, Morris, &
Greenwood, 2012), socio-material practices (Hultin & Mahring, 2014), and
members’ individual identities (Lok, 2010). These and similar studies and
conceptual models (Besharov & Smith, 2014; Pache & Santos, 2010, 2013;
Santos, Pache, & Birkholz, 2015) exemplify how institutional logics are
intertwined with various organizational dynamics.
Still, and here is a central point in the criticism of the institutional logics
perspective, the very micro level that of individuals and their daily lives
within organizations in light of, and reshaping, institutional logics is
quite missing from institutional logics research (Cloutier AU:6& Langley, 2013;
Cornelissen et al., 2015; Hallett, 2010). This criticism was phrased in a
number of ways. Hallett and Ventresca (2006), for instance, lamented the
“decoupling of institutions from social interaction” (p. 215) and called
to re-inhabit institutions with “people, their work activities, social
143Studying Institutional Logics from the Bottom-Up
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

interactions, and meaning-making processes, all of which tend to be
obscured by the macro-gaze common in contemporary neo-institutionalism”
(Hallett, 2010, p. 53). Powell and Colyvas (2008, pp. 276277) called to re-
focus on the micro-foundations of institutions, emphasizing in particular
that organizations and organizations members are not mere passive recipi-
ents of institutional demands. They thus suggest that researchers should
examine “how individuals locate themselves in social relations and interpret
their context. How do organizational participants maintain or transform
the institutional forces that guide daily practice?” Barley (2008) offered a
similar argument, highlighting the importance of understanding what orga-
nizational participants actually do at the coalface of organizational life.
Most recently, Cornelissen et al. (2015) built on theories of communication
from various disciplines and broadly defined to reintroduce the micro
level into the study of institutional logics. They argue that the focus on
“social interaction that builds on speech, gestures, texts, discourses, and
other means” will allow us to see these forms of symbolic interactions “not
just …as expressions of reflections of inner thoughts of collective intentions,
but as potentially formative of institutional reality” (Cornelissen et al.,
2015, p. 11). So far, though, all these critical voices notwithstanding, the
connections between institutions and intra-organizational social life, interac-
tions and individuals, remained quite outside the gaze of institutional
logics scholars.
From Social Construction to Reification and Back Again
The flight from the micro social level is not an accidental oversight. Rather,
from the perspective of a sociology of knowledge and of institutional
theory itself, institutional theory is caught up within its own institutional
context. It is well rooted in the paradigmatic foundations of organization
theory as a scientific discipline. While early formulations of institutional
theory were anchored within a social constructivist worldview AU:7(Berger &
Luckmann, 1967; Meyer & Rowan, 1977), this ontological stand somehow
faded away later on. Whether studying institutional logics on the macro- or
meso-levels, most studies are built upon a (quite positivistic) cause-and-
affect model. For example, Wright and Zammuto (2013) studied how a
change in the institutional logics that govern the field of English Country
Cricket, affected organizational and field-level dynamics. The logics 
Cricket-as-art and Cricket-as-business were identified and analyzed in
the first stage of data analysis. The central empirical effort was to identify
144 TAMMAR B. ZILBER
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

the various dynamics that ensue, and the main theoretical effort was to
come up with a process model that integrates them all into a coherent
cause-and-effect understanding of change in a mature field.
Thus, in this and similar studies, scholars treat institutional logics as the
independent and clearly defined “variable” trying to uncover how
changes in institutional logics, or logics multiplicity, affect institutionaliza-
tion serving as the dependent variable (for rare exceptions that treat institu-
tional logics as a dependent variable, see Ansari, Wijen, & Gray, 2013;
Dunn & Jones, 2010; Glynn & Lounsbury, 2005). What allows for treating
institutional logics as variables, is relating to logics as ideal types, or broad
meaning systems, shared in the organizational field or society at large.
While they are not observed directly, institutional logics are assumed to be
reflected in structures, practices, and behaviors (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008,
p. 121). Accordingly, their effect is measured by the diffusion of such struc-
tures, practices, and behaviors, or organizational strategies and dynamics.
Institutional logic thus become “reified abstractions AU:8” (Hallett & Ventresca,
2006, p. 215), treated as given and pre-determined, as they are “pulled
down to interpret events at the local level” (Gray, Purdy, & Ansari,
2015, p. 115).
Treating institutional logics as mere independent variables is closely tied
up with treating them as given, and as higher-order ideal types. Such
understanding of logics characterizes meso-level studies as well. Battilana
and Dorado (2010), for example, studied two microfinance organizations,
and demonstrated that establishing such pioneering hybrid organizations
requires an organizational identity that builds upon competing logics.
While the authors dive into intra-organizational dynamics pointing to
various organizational mechanisms, like hiring practices and socialization
processes that allow the organizations to establish themselves as hybrids 
they treat the logics themselves as given, instead of as socially and dynami-
cally constructed. Hence, the scholars identify two competing logics 
banking logic and developmental logic that were blended into the emer-
ging commercial-microfinance logic governing the studied organizations.
The three logics relevant to the studied organizations get “frozen” then,
presented as detached from the very process of institutionalization. The
intra-organizational dynamics explored are presented as having no effect 
through construction, interpretation or possibly reshaping on the logics.
The logics themselves are treated as merely given.
Pache’s and Santos’s (2013) are a rare example of a study that dedicates
much empirical effort to explicating and unpacking the contents and the
meanings encompassed within certain logics instead of treating them as a
145Studying Institutional Logics from the Bottom-Up
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

“black box.” The researchers identify the characteristics of the competing
social welfare and commercial logics governing the field of “work integra-
tion social enterprises.” They closely follow the “organizational elements
on which logics prescribe conflicting demands” (Pache & Santos, 2013,
pp. 979983), thus setting the ground to the identification of diverse
response patterns within the organization, and their possible explanations.
Even in this case, however, the analysis avoids the dialectics of an interpre-
tation process: The logics themselves are taken as given, unified, and thor-
oughly stable. They are not understood as being molded and reconstructed
in their very use within organizations.
More generally, most studies of institutional logics treat them as exogen-
ous to the field, so that organizational or intra-organizational dynamics are
“analytically removed” (Lounsbury, Ventresca, & Hirsch, 2003, p. 72), or
“cut loose from their moorings” in the day-to-day interactions between
people within organizations (Hallett & Ventresca, 2006, p. 215).
COMPLEMENTING THE INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS
PERSPECTIVE
How can we complement current studies, with their tendency to focus on
the macro level and to reify institutional logics? Countering these tenden-
cies will involve attending to the “lived experience of organizational actors”
acting and interacting specifically in accomplishing their everyday practi-
cal work (Lawrence, Suddaby, & Leca, 2011, p. 52). “Institutions are sus-
tained, altered, and extinguished,” argued Powell and Colyvas (2008,
p. 276) “as they are enacted by individuals in concrete social situations.
(…) (We need) theories that attend to enaction, interpretation, translation,
and meaning.” More specifically, Hallett and Ventresca (2006, p. 215) sug-
gest to inhabit institutions with people, highlighting social interactions as
the “beating heart of institutions” (see also Gray et al., 2015; Ocasio,
Loewenstein, & Nigam, 2015). Other researchers underscored the need to
problematize and open up an inquiry into the shifting and dynamic mean-
ings attached to institutional logics by social actors and within the
dynamics of social interactions. They argue that while institutions have the
force to “penetrate organizations,” their effects within organizations come
about through social interaction: “Institutions are interpreted and modified
as people coordinate the activities that propel institutions forward.”
This means that “institutions, as common cognitive understandings, are,
146 TAMMAR B. ZILBER
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

importantly, also an emergent effect, or outcome, of on-going processes of
communication between diverse actors. Rather than casting institutions as
entities at a different level of analysis and divorced from acts and practices
of discourse and communication, we advocate for a perspective that
accounts for the communicative constitution, maintenance, and transfor-
mation of institutions” (Cornelissen et al., 2015, p. 14).
Given the critical mass of criticism of the institutional logics perspective
for its neglect of micro level, social-constructionist dynamics, and the vari-
ety of conceptual alternatives offered, there are surprisingly very little
empirical studies that actually rose to the challenge (Cornelissen et al.,
2015, p. 15; Ocasio et al., 2015). I suggest that this may be because the pro-
posed research agenda is not simple to implement. In fact, it is quite elusive
and hard to capture, especially given the dominance of certain positivistic
and macro-level research paradigms within organization AU:9studies (Amis &
Silk, 2008; Bluhm, Harman, Lee, & Mitchell, 2011; Bort & Kieser, 2011).
Taking the call to study the black box of institutional logics seriously will
require some building blocks that could help in carrying out research pro-
jects that could advance our understanding how institutional logic work on
the ground. I suggest that three main elements should be included in such
research projects: paying attention to ontology, methods, and theorizing.
I will detail each of these below.
Ontological Sensibilities
First, changing course will require a suitable ontology that is a certain
understanding of or sensibility in regard to what consists social reality 
one that reflects a processual orientation AU:10(Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas, &
Van de Ven, 2013), and a distributed understanding of agency (Smets &
Jarzabkowski, 2013; Smets et al., 2012). Such an ontology, in particular,
needs to offer a new balance between structure and agency in our under-
standing of institutions. Instead of overstating, and overestimating, the
power of institutions, we need to highlight the “impact of individual and
collective actors on the institutions that regulate the fields in which they
operate” (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 218). Still, in trying to strike a
new balance between actors and the structures within which they operate,
we also should abandon the overly heroic depiction of agents and agency
within institutional theory (Lawrence, Suddaby, & Leca, 2009). We should
acknowledge instead the daily, recursive and complex actions and behaviors
that underlie institutional dynamics AU:11(Smets & Jarzabkowski, 2013, p. 1280).
147Studying Institutional Logics from the Bottom-Up
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

Such a focus involves the understanding that the work of institutional logics
on the ground is “fairly mundane, aimed at interpretation, alignment,
and muddling through”. Its effect is “subtle, not particularly abrupt,
and apparent only after a considerable period” (Powell & Colyvas,
2008, p. 277).
Compatible Methods
No less important, and attached to an ontological shift, there is a need for
a comprehensive and suitable methodology. The kind of fluid dynamics
that are contingent on local conditions that are at the heart of a bottom-up
perspective on institutional logics “escape easy measurement” (Hallett,
2010, p. 69). Not only do they require a small N (Tsoukas, 2009), but also
“a skeptical, inquiring attitude” (Hallett & Ventresca, 2006, p. 214) and a
willingness to acknowledge the on-going, complex processes that do not
fall neatly within cause-and-effect models so highly regarded in our disci-
pline (Bluhm et al., 2011; Bort & Kieser, 2011; Marsden, 1993). They
require a methodology that allows researchers to collect and analyze micro-
level data that include accounts of recurring actions and interactions along
time and follow them in relation to actors and shifting social contexts. Still,
such methodology cannot be simply taken off the shelf, readymade. It
would need recalibration and innovative adaptations to suit the specific
problematics entailed in the institutional logics perspective.
Thus, not any qualitative methodology will suffice. While we have seen a
surge of studies based on qualitative methods within institutional theory
(Davis & Bitektine, 2009), many of them assume that institutional logics
are given, and need only be revealed and compared. They thus work to
deduce and match empirical patterns (cf. Reay & Jones, 2016) and AU:12thus use
their qualitative data from a positivistic stand (Langley & Abdallah, 2011).
Qualitative interviews will not suffice either, as interviews present a specific
representation of social reality that cannot account for how logics actually
work on the ground. Thus, the very presence of a researcher, and “the arti-
ficial interview situation” may elicit actors intentions, goals, and plans, or
after-the-fact justification of their behaviors, rather than the behaviors
themselves (Bullinger, 2014, p. 4). Ethnography, as a method of “pattern
inducing” (Reay & Jones, 2016, pp. 911), on the other hand, seem most
suitable to the task. Still the classical ethnography that highlighted an
exploration of a social group working within a bounded social sphere in a
closed locality, and inhabited by small numbers of people, should be
148 TAMMAR B. ZILBER
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

supplemented by recent ethnographic studies that expand their horizons to
include multiple sites and the organizational field (cf. Zilber, 2014, 2016).
And, additional analytical efforts will have to be made to enable research-
ers to “look two ways at once,” integrating the search into the micro-
foundations of institutional logics with the focus on logics and the broad
social patters of institutors at the macro level (Haedicke & Hallett, 2016).
Context-Sensitive Theorizing
Finally, studying institutional logics on the ground requires new and recali-
brated theoretical tool-kit that will allow to explore institutional logics in
context as emergent rather than a given phenomenon, and always on-
going, on any and all levels of analysis. Such context-sensitive theorizing
will allow for the “contextualization” of institutional logics understand-
ing them within their “relational, temporal and performative dimensions”
(Garud, Gehman, & Giuliani, 2014, p. 1178). Contextualizing institutional
logics fits a constructivist ontology, one that goes beyond simple dichoto-
mies (micro-macro, structure-agency), to appreciate how actors and institu-
tional logics constitute each other in an on-going process.
By context-sensitive theorizing I refer to both a grand-theory a meta-
theory like French sociological pragmatism (Boltanski & The
´venot, 2006),
Weicks’ Sense-making approach (Weber & Glynn, 2006) or a practice
perspective (Schatzki, 1996, 2002, 2004), but also a meso-level conceptuali-
zation that will offer concrete concepts that could be further problematize
in the ways they get contextualized within the organization. These concepts
may include culture (Giorgi, Lockwood, & Glynn, 2015; Weber & Dacin,
2011), frames (Gray et al., 2015), practices (Jarzabkowski, Smets,
Bednarek, Burke, & Spee, 2013; Smets & Jarzabkowski, 2013; Smets et al.,
2012; Smets, Jarzabkowski, Burke, & Spee, 2015), and scripts (Voronov,
De Clercq, & Hinings, 2013). They can also include theorizing taken from
micro sociological theories of action like symbolic interactionism
(Everitt, 2013).
Organization studies developed, throughout the years, through borrow-
ing from neighboring disciplines (Agarwal & Hoetker, 2007; Hatch, 1997)
and adapting of theories (Bartunek & Spreitzer, 2006; Oswick, Fleming, &
Hanlon, 2011; Whetten, Felin, & King, 2009). Hence, scholars within
the institutional logics perspective will need to borrow translate and
realign theories, methodologies, and ontologies from other research
domains. The main focus should be finding ways to bridge the gap between
149Studying Institutional Logics from the Bottom-Up
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

the micro and the macro, in order to free the institutional logics perspective
from its top-down bias, and enable it to explore bottom-up the “inner
workings” of institutions (Cloutier & Langley, 2013, p. 362).
GOING FORWARD: SOME EXAMPLES
To date, the few studies that did follow through with such a renewed
research agenda, are based on ethnographic methods, and exemplify the
potential of the ontological, methodological, and theoretical shift I am
advocating here. McPherson and Sauder’s (2013) study of logics on the
ground based on an ethnographic study of the internal dynamics within a
drug court, outline how different actors speak in the name of prevailing dif-
ferent logics to further their desired goals in court meetings. The in-depth
study of the dynamics of institutional logic within the organization,
allowed the researchers to identify no less than five different logics (com-
pare to only two logics usually identified in most studies of institutional
complexity). Most importantly, the research strategy allowed the research-
ers to highlight and detail how actors use these logics creatively.
At the same time, McPherson’s and Sauder’s (2013) study also exempli-
fies the shortcomings of an institutional logics study that goes only half
way, collecting ethnographic data but putting it to use in a positivistic style.
Thus, while the logics are creatively used, they are by themselves, taken to
be clear cut and given, “fully formed and ‘waiting’ to be activated in the
right situation” (Voronov et al., 2013, p. 1565). Further, McPherson and
Sauder (2013) reduced their rich ethnographic data into numerical repre-
sentation of logics’ use, and thus came up with an overly agentic depiction
of the actors, whose use of the logics seems to have no limits, and no refer-
ence-specific contexts and to other actors’ use. The practice of counting
within qualitative studies makes them seem very convincing, but this reduc-
tion of rich ethnographic data comes with a price, as we get no deep under-
standing of the social dynamics involved. In particular, we hardly have a
sense of interactions, communications, and contexts within which the
various logics are used, and perhaps re-shaped.
Voronov et al. (2013), studying the Ontario wine industry, offer another
example. They found that actors engage with institutional logics, and inter-
pret them, into various scripts. Scripts’ enactment, they argue, varies across
actors and audiences, as it takes place with interaction. The use of scripts,
as a bridge between macro and micro (institutional logics and actors
150 TAMMAR B. ZILBER
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

interpretations), allowed them to better appreciate the emergent, flexible
nature of institutional logics themselves. As scripts integrate project identi-
ties, associated material practices and communication strategies, they
reflect creative engagement with institutional logics, and allow for a more
nuanced view of how institutional logics work on the ground.
McPherson and Sauder (2013) and Voronov et al. (2013) and other stu-
dies (Binder, 2007; Everitt, 2013; Hallett, 2010) show, then, that “logics are
not purely top-down: real people, in real contexts, with consequential past
experiences of their own, play with them, question them, combine them
with institutional logics from other domains, take what they can use from
them, and make them fit their needs” (Binder, 2007, p. 568). These studies
are good examples then of the perspective-change and the new conceptual
and methodological adaptations needed to fully appreciate the work of
institutional logics on the ground. These studies show that contrary to
common wisdom, institutional logics do not deterministically direct activ-
ities and behaviors within organizations, but are rather worked out within
a hermeneutical circle. Institutional logics are both taken for granted and
reconstituted by actors.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Realigning the study of institutional logics to include their micro-
foundations is not a simple expansion of an area of research. The construc-
tion of such research projects requires a shift toward constructivist
conceptualizations of institutions and institutional logics, and the use and
further development of suitable theories and methodologies that will allow
us to zoom-in into such processes of construction.
Focusing on one isolated site and use some classic participant observa-
tions is not enough. Nor is it enough to collect qualitative data yet use it in
a positivistic way. What we need is a “modified stance in regard to data
and theory” (Hallett, 2010, p. 66). Besides collecting qualitative, micro and
“local” data, we need renewed conceptualizations, analysis and representa-
tions that will allow us to stay true to their “local” nature, and yet allow
for exploring the interactions by which, in a recursive process, institutional
logics themselves come to be and influence further interactions. Specifically,
I call to follow the work of institutional logics in interactions among actors
within organizations, in situ and in vivo; and to appreciate not only how
people within organizations engage with, interpret and use institutional
logics but how, by doing so, they actually constitute them.
151Studying Institutional Logics from the Bottom-Up
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Writing was supported by the Recanati Center at the Jerusalem Business
School, Hebrew University, Israel. Thanks to Joel Gehman, Vern Glaser,
Mary Ann Glynn, and Christi Lockwood for their friendly and helpful
reviews on an earlier version of this paper. Special thanks to Yehuda
Goodman for the fruitful discussion on this paper.
REFERENCES
Agarwal, R., & Hoetker, G. (2007). A faustian bargain? The growth of management and its
relationship with related disciplines. Academy of Management Journal,
50(6), 13041322.
Almandoz, J. (2014). Founding teams as carriers of competing logics: When institutional
forces predict banks’ risk exposure. Administrative Science Quarterly,59(3), 442473.
Amis, J. M., & Silk, M. L. (2008). The philosophy and politics of quality in qualitative organi-
zational research. Organizational Research Methods,11, 456480.
Ansari, S., Wijen, F., & Gray, B. (2013). Constructing a climate change logic: An institutional
perspective on the “Tragedy of the Commons”. Organization Science,24(4),
10141040.
Barley, S. R. (2008). Coalface institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, &
R. Suddaby (Eds.), Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 491518).
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Bartunek, J. M., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2006). The interdisciplinary career of a popular construct
used in management: Empowerment in the late 20th century. Journal of Management
Inquiry,15(3), 255273.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of
commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal,53(6),
14191440.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociol-
ogy of knowledge. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations:
Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review,
39(3), 364381.
Binder, A. (2007). For love and money: Organizations’ creative responses to multiple environ-
mental logics. Theory and Society,36(6), 547571.
Bjerregaard, T., & Jonasson, C. (2014). Organizational responses to contending institutional
logics: The moderating effect of group dynamics. British Journal of Management,
25(4), 651666.
Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Qualitative research in
management: A decade of progress. Journal of Management Studies,48(8), 18661891.
Boltanski, L., & The
´venot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
152 TAMMAR B. ZILBER
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

Bort, S., & Kieser, A. (2011). Fashion in organization theory: An empirical analysis of the
diffusion of theoretical concepts. Organization Studies,32(5), 655681.
Brandl, J., Daudigeos, T., Edwards, T., & Pernkopf-Konhaeusner, K. (2014). Why French
pragmatism matters to organizational institutionalism. Journal of Management Inquiry,
23(3), 314318.
Bullinger, B. (2014). Family affairs: Drawing on family logic and familiar regime of engage-
ment to contrast “close-up” views of individuals in conventionalist and institutionalist
reasoning. Journal of Management Inquiry,23(3), 328332.
Cloutier, C., & Langley, A. (2013). The logic of institutional logics: Insights from French prag-
matist sociology. Journal of Management Inquiry,22(4), 360380.
Cornelissen, J. P., Durand, R., Fiss, P. C., Lammers, J. C., & Vaara, E. (2015). Putting com-
munication front and center in institutional theory and analysis. Academy of
Management Review,40(1), 1027.
Davis, R. J., & Bitektine, A. B. (2009). The deinstitutionalization of institutional theory?
Exploring divergent agendas in institutional research. In A. Bryman & D. A. Buchanan
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 160175).
London: Sage.
Delbridge, R., & Edwards, T. (2013). Inhabiting institutions: Critical realist refinements to
understanding institutional complexity and change. Organization Studies,34(7),
927947.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio
(Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 138). Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The contesta-
tion of care and science logics in medical education, 19672005. Administrative Science
Quarterly,55(1), 114149.
Everitt, J. G. (2013). Inhabitants moving in: Prospective sense-making and the reproduction of
inhabited institutions in teacher education. Symbolic Interaction,36(2), 177196.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Giuliani, A. P. (2014). Contextualizing entrepreneurial innovation:
A narrative perspective. Research Policy,43, 11771188.
Giorgi, S., Lockwood, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2015). The many faces of culture: Making sense of
30 years of research on culture in organization studies. Academy of Management
Annals,9(1), 154.
Glynn, M. A., Barr, P. S., & Dacin, M. T. (2000). Pluralism and the problem of variety.
Academy of Management Review,25(4), 726734.
Glynn, M. A., & Lounsbury, M. (2005). From the critics’ corner: Logic blending, discursive
change and authenticity in a cultural production system. Journal of Management
Studies,42(5), 10311055.
Goodrick, E., & Reay, T. (2011). Constellations of institutional logics: Changes in the profes-
sional work of pharmacists. Work and Occupations,38(3), 372416.
Gray, B., Purdy, J. M., & Ansari, S. (2015). From interactions to institutions: Microprocesses
of framing and mechanisms for the structuring of institutional fields. Academy of
Management Review,40(1), 115143.
Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R., & Whetten, D. (2014). Rethinking institutions and organiza-
tions. Journal of Management Studies,51(7), 12061220.
153Studying Institutional Logics from the Bottom-Up
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Shalin, K., & Suddaby, R. (2008). Introduction. In R. Greenwood,
C. Oliver, K. Shalin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institu-
tionalism (pp. 4146). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011).
Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management
Annals,5, 317371.
Haedicke, M. A., & Hallett, T. (2016). How to look two ways at once: Research strategies for
inhabited institutionalism. In K. D. Elsbach & R. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of qualita-
tive research in organizations. New York, NY: Routledge, forthcoming.
Hallett, T. (2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institu-
tions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review,75(1), 5274.
Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M. J. (2006). Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and organiza-
tional forms in Gouldner’s patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Theory and Society,
35(2), 213236.
Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hirsch, P. M., & Lounsbury, M. (1997). Putting the organization back into organization
theory Action, change, and the “new” institutionalism. Journal of Management
Inquiry,6(1), 7988.
Hultin, L., & Mahring, M. (2014). Visualizing institutional logics in sociomaterial practices.
Information and Organization,24(3), 129155.
Jarzabkowski, P., Smets, M., Bednarek, R., Burke, G., & Spee, P. (2013). Institutional ambi-
dexterity: Leveraging institutional complexity in practice. Research in the Sociology of
Organizations: Institutional Logics in Action,39(B), 349373.
Jones, C., Maoret, M., Massa, F. G., & Svejenova, S. (2012). Rebels with a cause: Formation,
contestation, and expansion of the De Novo category “modern architecture,”
18701975. Organization Science,23(6), 15231545.
Kennedy, M. T., & Fiss, P. C. (2009). Institutionalization, framing, and diffusion: The logic of
TQM adoption and implementation decisions among us hospitals. Academy of
Management Journal,52(5), 897918.
Kodeih, F., & Greenwood, R. (2014). Responding to institutional complexity: The role of
identity. Organization Studies,35(1), 739.
Langley, A., & Abdallah, C. (2011). Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy and
management. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management,6, 201235.
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of
change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow.
Academy of Management Journal,56(1), 113.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg,
C. Hardy, W. R. Nord, & T. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies
(pp. 215254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (Eds.). (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency
in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional
studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry,20(1), 5258.
Lok, J. (2010). Institutional logics as identity projects. Academy of Management Journal,
53(6), 13051335.
154 TAMMAR B. ZILBER
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

Lounsbury, M. (2002). Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionaliza-
tion of the field of finance. Academy of Management Journal,45(1), 255266.
Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the
professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal,50(2), 289307.
Lounsbury, M., & Beckman, C. M. (2015). Celebrating organization theory. Journal of
Management Studies,52(2), 288308.
Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., & Hirsch, P. M. (2003). Social movements, field frames and
industry emergence: A cultural-political perspective on US recycling. Socio-Economic
Review,1(1), 71104.
Marquis, C., & Lounsbury, M. (2007). Vive la resistance: Competing logics and the consolida-
tion of US community banking. Academy of Management Journal,50(4), 799820.
Marsden, R. (1993). The politics of organizational analysis. Organization Studies,
14(1), 93124.
McPherson, C. M., & Sauder, M. (2013). Logics in action: Managing institutional complexity
in a drug court. Administrative Science Quarterly,58(2), 165196.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth
and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology,83, 340363.
Mizruchi, M. S., & Fein, L. C. (1999). The social construction of organizational knowledge: A
study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative
Science Quarterly,44(4), 653683.
Ocasio, W., Loewenstein, J., & Nigam, A. (2015). How streams of communication reproduce
and change institutional logics: The role of categories. Academy of Management
Review,40(1), 2848.
Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. (2011). From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the
processes of organizational theory building. Academy of Management Review,
36(2), 318337.
Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organiza-
tional responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review,
35(3), 455476.
Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a
response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal,
56(4), 9721001.
Pernkopf-Konhaeusner, K. (2014). The competent actor: Bridging institutional logics and
French pragmatist sociology. Journal of Management Inquiry,23(3), 333337.
Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. A. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In
R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), Sage handbook of organiza-
tional institutionalism (pp. 276298). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Purdy, J. M., & Gray, B. (2009). Conflicting logics, mechanisms of diffusion, and multilevel
dynamics in emerging institutional fields. Academy of Management Journal,
52(2), 355380.
Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003). Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cui-
sine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology,
108(4), 795843.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2005). The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care
in Alberta. Organization Studies,26(3), 351384.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics.
Organization Studies,30(6), 629652.
155Studying Institutional Logics from the Bottom-Up
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

Reay, T., & Jones, C. (2016). Qualitatively capturing AU:14institutional logics. Strategic
Organization,114, forthcoming.
Santos, F., Pache, A. C., & Birkholz, C. (2015). Making hybrids work: Aligning business mod-
els and organizational design for social enterprises. California Management Review,
57(3), 3658.
Sauermann, H., & Stephan, P. (2013). Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of indus-
trial and academic science. Organization Science,24(3), 889909.
Schatzki, T. (1996). Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the
social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schatzki, T. (2002). The site of the social: A Philosophical account of the constitution of social
life and change. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
Smets, M., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2013). Reconstructing institutional complexity in practice: A
relational model of institutional work and complexity. Human Relations,
66(10), 12791309.
Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s
of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of
Management Journal,58(3), 932970.
Smets, M., Morris, T., & Greenwood, R. (2012). From practice to field: A multilevel model of
practice-driven institutional change. Academy of Management Journal,55(4), 877904.
Suddaby, R. (2010). Challenges for institutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry,
19(1), 1420.
Suddaby, R., Elsbach, K. D., Greenwood, R., Meyer, J. W., & Zilber, T. B. (2010).
Organizations and their institutional environments, bringing meaning, values, and cul-
ture back in: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management
Journal,53(6), 12341240.
Thornton, P. H. (2001). Personal versus market logics of control: A historically contingent
theory of the risk of acquisition. Organization Science,12(3), 294311.
Thornton, P. H. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and confor-
mity in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal,45(1), 81101.
Thornton, P. H. (2004). Market from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in
higher education publishing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Thornton, P. H., Jones, C., & Kury, K. (2005). Institutional logics and institutional change in
organizations: Transformations in accounting, architecture and publishing. Research in
the Sociology of Organizations,23, 127132.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of
power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing indus-
try, 19581990. American Journal of Sociology,105(3), 801843.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver,
K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism
(pp. 99129). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A
new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tsoukas, H. (2009). Craving for generality and small-N studies: A Wittgensteinian approach
towards the epistemology of the particular in organization and management studies. In
D. A. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research
methods (pp. 285301). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
156 TAMMAR B. ZILBER
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

Voronov, M., De Clercq, D., & Hinings, C. R. (2013). Institutional complexity and logic
engagement: An investigation of Ontario fine wine. Human Relations,66(12),
15631596.
Weber, K., & Glynn, M. A. (2006). Making sense with institutions: Context, thought and
action in Karl Weick’s theory. Organization Studies,27(11), 16391660.
Whetten, D. A., Felin, T., & King, B. G. (2009). The practice of theory borrowing in organiza-
tional studies: Current issues and future directions. Journal of Management,35(3),
537563.
Wright, A. L., & Zammuto, R. F. (2013). Wielding the willow: Processes of institutional
change in English county cricket. Academy of Management Journal,56(1), 308330.
Yu, K. H. (2013). Institutionalization in the context of institutional pluralism: Politics as a
generative process. Organization Studies,34(1), 105131.
Zilber, T. B. (2013). Institutional logics and institutional work: Should they be agreed? In
M. Lounsbury & E. Boxenbaum (Eds.), Institutional logics in action (Vol. 39A,
pp. 7796). Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Zilber, T. B. (2014). Beyond a single organization: Challenges and opportunities in doing field
level ethnography. Journal of Organizational Ethnography,3(1), 96113.
Zilber, T. B. (2016). Studying organizational fields through ethnography. In K. D. Elsbach &
R. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in organizations. New York, NY:
Routledge, forthcoming.
UNCITED REFERENCES AU:13
Delbridge and Edwards (2013), DiMaggio and Powell (1991)
157Studying Institutional Logics from the Bottom-Up
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39

AUTHOR QUERY FORM
Book: RSO-V048A-3611331
Chapter: CH005
Please e-mail or fax your responses
and any corrections to:
E-mail:
Fax:
Dear Author,
During the preparation of your manuscript for typesetting, some questions may have arisen.
These are listed below. Please check your typeset proof carefully and mark any corrections in
the margin of the proof or compile them as a separate list.
Disk use
Sometimes we are unable to process the electronic file of your article and/or artwork. If this is
the case, we have proceeded by:
□Scanning (parts of) your article □Rekeying (parts of) your article
□Scanning the artwork
Bibliography
If discrepancies were noted between the literature list and the text references, the following
may apply:
□The references listed below were noted in the text but appear to be missing from
your literature list. Please complete the list or remove the references from the text.
□UNCITED REFERENCES: This section comprises references that occur in the
reference list but not in the body of the text. Please position each reference in the text
or delete it. Any reference not dealt with will be retained in this section.
Queries and/or remarks
Location in Article Query / remark Response
AU:1 Please note that spelling of author
name for “Thronton et al. (2012)"
has been changed to “Thornton
et al., 2012" as per reference list.
Please check and confirm.

AU:2 Please note that year for
“Jarzabkowski, Smets, Bednarek,
Burke, & Spee, 2011” has been
changed to “Jarzabkowski, Smets,
Bednarek, Burke, & Spee, 2013” as
per reference list. Please check
and confirm.
AU:3 Please note that spelling of author
name for “Brandl, Dandigeos,
Edwards, & Pernkopf-Konhausner,
2014" has been changed to “Brandl,
Daudigeos, Edwards, and Pernkopf-
Konhaeusner (2014)" as per
reference list. Please check
and confirm.
AU:4 Please note that spelling of author
name for “Pernkopf-Konha
¨usner,
2014" has been changed to
“Pernkopf-Konhaeusner (2014)" as
per reference list. Please check
and confirm.
AU:5 The following references are cited
but not present in the reference list:
Christiansen & Lounsbury, 2013;
Jason, 2013; Schatzki, 2004; Weber
& Dacin, 2011" Please provide
complete reference details.
AU:6 Please note that spelling of author
name for “Coultier & Langley,
2013" has been changed to “Cloutier
& Langley, 2013" as per reference
list. Please check and confirm.
AU:7 Please note that spelling of author
name “Berger & Luckman, 1967"
has been changed to “Berger and
Luckmann (1967)" as per reference
list. Please check and confirm if this
is correct.
AU:8 Please note that spelling of author
name for “Hallete & Ventresca,
2006" has been changed to “Hallett
& Ventresca, 2006" as per reference
list. Please check and confirm.

AU:9 Please note that year for “Amis &
Silk, 2007” has been changed to
“Amis & Silk, 2008” as per reference
list. Please check and confirm.
AU:10 Please note that spelling of author
name for “Langley, Shallman,
Tsoukas & Van de Ven, 2013" has
been changed to “Langley,
Smallman, Tsoukas, and Van de
Ven (2013)" as per reference list.
Please check and confirm.
AU:11 Please note that spelling of author
name for “Smets & Jarzabkoski,
2013" has been changed to “Smets
& Jarzabkowski, 2013" as per
reference list. Please check
and confirm.
AU:12 Please note that spelling of author
name for “Ready & Jones, 2016"
has been changed to “Reay & Jones,
2016" as per reference list. Please
check and confirm.
AU:13 The following references are not
cited: "Delbridge and Edwards
(2013); DiMaggio and Powell
(1991)". Please cite them; if no
citations are available then these
references need to be removed from
the list.
AU:14 Please provide volume for "Reay, &
Jones (2016)" references list entry.