{"title":"Relations between reflexivity and institutional work: A case study in a public organisation","authors":"Tiina Tuominen","doi":"10.1177/00187267241290637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reflexivity is often considered a prerequisite for institutional work. However, the relationship between reflexivity and institutional work has rarely been examined rigorously in empirical research, and there is a lack of consensus on when and how reflexivity motivates such efforts. This study aims to address this gap by reviewing existing operationalisations of reflexivity and exploring how different forms of reflexivity impacted employees’ engagement in institutional work in a public organisation undergoing institutional change. The empirical results revealed seven distinct patterns of reflexivity and institutional work, indicating that variations across three dimensions of reflexive evaluation – scope, openness and relationality – contributed to decisions about whether and how to engage in institutional work. The results also demonstrated that reflexivity is profoundly grounded in individuals’ concerns and shaped by their work and professional histories. These findings suggest that researchers and practitioners must develop a deeper understanding of the multidimensional nature of reflexivity in order to foster meaningful employee contributions to institutional processes.","PeriodicalId":48433,"journal":{"name":"Human Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Relations","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267241290637","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Reflexivity is often considered a prerequisite for institutional work. However, the relationship between reflexivity and institutional work has rarely been examined rigorously in empirical research, and there is a lack of consensus on when and how reflexivity motivates such efforts. This study aims to address this gap by reviewing existing operationalisations of reflexivity and exploring how different forms of reflexivity impacted employees’ engagement in institutional work in a public organisation undergoing institutional change. The empirical results revealed seven distinct patterns of reflexivity and institutional work, indicating that variations across three dimensions of reflexive evaluation – scope, openness and relationality – contributed to decisions about whether and how to engage in institutional work. The results also demonstrated that reflexivity is profoundly grounded in individuals’ concerns and shaped by their work and professional histories. These findings suggest that researchers and practitioners must develop a deeper understanding of the multidimensional nature of reflexivity in order to foster meaningful employee contributions to institutional processes.
期刊介绍：
Human Relations is an international peer reviewed journal, which publishes the highest quality original research to advance our understanding of social relationships at and around work through theoretical development and empirical investigation. Scope Human Relations seeks high quality research papers that extend our knowledge of social relationships at work and organizational forms, practices and processes that affect the nature, structure and conditions of work and work organizations. Human Relations welcomes manuscripts that seek to cross disciplinary boundaries in order to develop new perspectives and insights into social relationships and relationships between people and organizations. Human Relations encourages strong empirical contributions that develop and extend theory as well as more conceptual papers that integrate, critique and expand existing theory. Human Relations welcomes critical reviews and essays: - Critical reviews advance a field through new theory, new methods, a novel synthesis of extant evidence, or a combination of two or three of these elements. Reviews that identify new research questions and that make links between management and organizations and the wider social sciences are particularly welcome. Surveys or overviews of a field are unlikely to meet these criteria. - Critical essays address contemporary scholarly issues and debates within the journal''s scope. They are more controversial than conventional papers or reviews, and can be shorter. They argue a point of view, but must meet standards of academic rigour. Anyone with an idea for a critical essay is particularly encouraged to discuss it at an early stage with the Editor-in-Chief. Human Relations encourages research that relates social theory to social practice and translates knowledge about human relations into prospects for social action and policy-making that aims to improve working lives.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
