Search

We draw on an in-depth longitudinal analysis of conflict over harvesting practices and decision authority in the British Columbia coastal forest industry to understand the role of institutional work in the transformation of organizational fields. We examine the work of actors to create, maintain, and disrupt the practices that are considered legitimate within a field (practice work) and the boundaries between sets of individuals and groups (boundary work), and the interplay of these two forms of institutional work in effecting change. We find that actors' boundary work and practice work operate in recursive configurations that underpin cycles of institutional innovation, conflict, stability, and restabilization. We also find that transitions between these cycles are triggered by combinations of three conditions: (1) the state of the boundaries, (2) the state of practices, and (3) the existence of actors with the capacity to undertake the boundary and practice work of a different institutional process. These findings contribute to untangling the paradox of embedded agency--how those subject to the institutions in a field can effect changes in them. We also contribute to an understanding of the processes and mechanisms that drive changes in the institutional lifecycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Structure, that is, deliberate patterns of relationships, is an important characteristic for analysis in comparative studies of organizations. Using a modified version of the Inkson short form of the Aston questionnaire, this study examined contextual and structural variables of 23 community, private, and agricultural colleges and technological institutes in Alberta and British Columbia. The Aston methodology was shown to have discriminating power and structural differences were apparent in the four groups. The factor solutions, however, were different from those obtained in the Aston studies, suggesting that the Aston generalizations do not apply to all types of organizations. In particular, different types of relationships were evident in the formalization of roles, functional specialization, and centralization of decision-making power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]