How Buddhist Monks Use Historical Narratives to Delegitimize a Dominant Institutional Logic: The Case of a Korean Buddhist Organizational Field, 1910–1962

IF 4.1 4区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Journal of Management Inquiry Pub Date : 2022-05-09 DOI:10.1177/10564926221099424
Hee‐Chan Song
{"title":"How Buddhist Monks Use Historical Narratives to Delegitimize a Dominant Institutional Logic: The Case of a Korean Buddhist Organizational Field, 1910–1962","authors":"Hee‐Chan Song","doi":"10.1177/10564926221099424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Historical narrative studies suggest that history can be strategically manipulated and narrated by current actors to facilitate change. The studies emphasize that history can be used as a source of narratives to serve present purposes. Building on the studies, this research investigates how leaders use history as a set of narratives to delegitimize a dominant logic, thus facilitating institutional change. The empirical context of this study is a Korean Buddhist organizational field during and after Japanese colonization between 1910 and 1962. This context allows to examine how a group of Korean monks with a peripheral logic (meditation logic) proactively used past stories, legends, and myths to delegitimize a dominant logic (service logic). Their narrative strategies are conceptualized in this study as reviving history, stigmatizing history, and invoking leaders from the past. In integrating the findings with the relevant literature, this research aims to contribute to historical narrative and institutional research.","PeriodicalId":47877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926221099424","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Historical narrative studies suggest that history can be strategically manipulated and narrated by current actors to facilitate change. The studies emphasize that history can be used as a source of narratives to serve present purposes. Building on the studies, this research investigates how leaders use history as a set of narratives to delegitimize a dominant logic, thus facilitating institutional change. The empirical context of this study is a Korean Buddhist organizational field during and after Japanese colonization between 1910 and 1962. This context allows to examine how a group of Korean monks with a peripheral logic (meditation logic) proactively used past stories, legends, and myths to delegitimize a dominant logic (service logic). Their narrative strategies are conceptualized in this study as reviving history, stigmatizing history, and invoking leaders from the past. In integrating the findings with the relevant literature, this research aims to contribute to historical narrative and institutional research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
佛教僧侣如何利用历史叙事去合法化占主导地位的制度逻辑:1910-1962年韩国佛教组织领域的案例
历史叙事研究表明,历史可以被当前的行动者战略性地操纵和叙述,以促进变革。这些研究强调,历史可以作为叙事的来源,为当前的目的服务。在这些研究的基础上,本研究探讨了领导者如何利用历史作为一套叙事来推翻主导逻辑的合法性,从而促进制度变革。本研究的实证背景是1910年至1962年日本殖民期间和之后的韩国佛教组织领域。这一背景允许研究一群具有外围逻辑(冥想逻辑)的韩国僧侣如何主动使用过去的故事、传说和神话来取消主导逻辑(服务逻辑)的合法性。在本研究中,他们的叙事策略被定义为复兴历史、污名化历史和援引过去的领导人。本研究旨在结合相关文献,为历史叙述和制度研究做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management Inquiry, sponsored by the Western Academy of Management, is a refereed journal for scholars and professionals in management, organizational behavior, strategy, and human resources. Its intent is to explore ideas and build knowledge in management theory and practice, with a focus on creative, nontraditional research as well as key controversies in the field. The journal seeks to maintain a constructive balance between innovation and quality, and at the same time widely define the forms that relevant contributions to the field can take. JMI features six sections: Meet the Person, Provocations, Reflections on Experience, Nontraditional Research, Essays, and Dialog.
期刊最新文献
Managing Social Impact Bonds: Intermediary Work and Designing Institutional Infrastructure Wake up! Advancing the Conversation on Woke Labeling Psychedelics, Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy and Employees’ Wellbeing A Revisionist History Approach to the Study of Emotional Labor: Have We Forgotten Display Rules and Service Contexts? Back to the Future: What We’d Change in “Social Identity Theory and the Organization” (Academy of Management Review, 1989, 14, 20–39)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1