JOELGEHMAN.COM

Another paper I recently completed is entitled “Phenomenology and institutional theory: Should institution be taken for granted?”

This paper investigates the concept of institution, a concept which has been used by scholars from across a number of disciplines to explain a wide variety of phenomena. Among organization scholars working in this tradition, one fundamental idea is that institutions become taken for granted to some degree. Over the years this linkage between the two concepts has itself become institutionalized and taken for granted. Any sense of difference that may have once existed between institution and taken for granted seems to have been forgotten.

In an effort to retrieve this distinction, the paper returns to Husserl, on whose philosophy these concepts rest. In doing so we find a richness and distinction otherwise glossed by merely reciting the idea that institution becomes taken for granted. The paper concludes that institution and taken for granted are phenomenologically distinct concepts. Through writing and documentation institution can become taken for granted. However, the process is reversible. Indeed Husserl’s real project seems to have been a demonstration of how taken for granted can and must become institution if we are to ever truly know ourselves and our world.

You can download a copy of the paper at the link below, or by visiting the Research section of my blog. As always, I invite your comments and feedback. 

Download Working Paper From SSRN (93k .pdf) 

Over the last several weeks I’ve been able to finish the latest versions of several papers.  One of these is a paper currently titled “Institutional change: A review and evaluation of research designs from1977-2007.”

This paper analyzes the research designs of empirical studies of institutional change published in leading management and sociology journals from 1977-2007. Generic institutional change research strategies are evaluated in terms of their strengths, weaknesses, rationale and appropriateness. Studies are further evaluated in terms of threats to their internal, external and construct validity; measurement types and classes; time scales; ethical considerations; and statistical conclusion validity. Overall, field studies, especially those drawing on archival data and event history analysis, are found to be the dominant research design.

The discussion highlights four potential limitations of these prior institutional change studies related to (1) tensions between the theoretical and operational level of analysis, (2) data limitations with regard to understanding microprocesses of institutional change, (3) the possible misspecification of the effects of historical time on hazard rate independent of elapsed time, and (4) the reliance on archival measures which are themselves constituted by institutional pressures. Finally, the paper proposes a research design that would provide additional precision in the control and measurement of variables of interest.

You can download a copy of the paper at the link below, or by visiting the Research section of my blog. As always, I invite your comments and feedback. 

Download Working Paper From SSRN (1,124k .pdf)