实践中的言行:用体现哲学的见解加强实践驱动的制度主义

IF 4.9 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Organization Studies Pub Date : 2024-06-22 DOI:10.1177/01708406241266314
Jan Goldenstein, Peter Walgenbach
{"title":"实践中的言行:用体现哲学的见解加强实践驱动的制度主义","authors":"Jan Goldenstein, Peter Walgenbach","doi":"10.1177/01708406241266314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The practice-driven perspective in organizational institutionalism has proposed that what actors say and do is decisive for the enactment of practices in everyday situations. However, this perspective has predominantly considered the role of doings and has disregarded the distinct role of sayings used in everyday situations. Our theoretical argument proposes the co-constitutive coexistence of sayings and doings in the enactment of practices that explains why and when doings inform specific sayings and why and when sayings prefigure specific doings. Theorizing this coexistence reveals when it is that sayings bolster the reproduction and stabilization of doings, when they contribute to change, and when sayings cannot coordinate doings because actors literally cannot understand one another. We argue that the consideration of the coexistence of sayings and doings is relevant for practice-driven institutionalism, as it enables the differentiation of the situated impact of doings and sayings on the development of practices. To develop this argument, we build on insights from the embodiment perspective within the philosophy of mind (i.e., philosophy of embodiment), which suggests that the body and its sensorimotor states in practices play an instrumental role in cognition and language use.","PeriodicalId":48423,"journal":{"name":"Organization Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sayings and doings in practices: Enhancing practice-driven institutionalism with insights from the philosophy of embodiment\",\"authors\":\"Jan Goldenstein, Peter Walgenbach\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01708406241266314\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The practice-driven perspective in organizational institutionalism has proposed that what actors say and do is decisive for the enactment of practices in everyday situations. However, this perspective has predominantly considered the role of doings and has disregarded the distinct role of sayings used in everyday situations. Our theoretical argument proposes the co-constitutive coexistence of sayings and doings in the enactment of practices that explains why and when doings inform specific sayings and why and when sayings prefigure specific doings. Theorizing this coexistence reveals when it is that sayings bolster the reproduction and stabilization of doings, when they contribute to change, and when sayings cannot coordinate doings because actors literally cannot understand one another. We argue that the consideration of the coexistence of sayings and doings is relevant for practice-driven institutionalism, as it enables the differentiation of the situated impact of doings and sayings on the development of practices. To develop this argument, we build on insights from the embodiment perspective within the philosophy of mind (i.e., philosophy of embodiment), which suggests that the body and its sensorimotor states in practices play an instrumental role in cognition and language use.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48423,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organization Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organization Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406241266314\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organization Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406241266314","RegionNum":1,"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

摘要

组织制度主义中的实践驱动视角提出,行动者的言行对日常实践的形成具有决定性作用。然而,这一视角主要考虑的是 "做 "的作用,而忽视了 "说 "在日常情境中的独特作用。我们的理论论证提出了在实践活动中 "说 "与 "做 "的共生共存,从而解释了为什么以及何时 "做 "为特定的 "说 "提供了信息,以及为什么以及何时 "说 "预示了特定的 "做"。对这种共存的理论化揭示了什么情况下说会促进做会的再现和稳定,什么情况下说会促进做会的改变,以及什么情况下说无法协调做会,因为行动者实际上无法相互理解。我们认为,考虑说与做的共存对于实践驱动的制度主义具有重要意义,因为它能够区分做与说对实践发展的影响。为了提出这一论点,我们借鉴了心智哲学(即体现哲学)中的体现视角,该视角认为身体及其在实践活动中的感觉运动状态在认知和语言使用中发挥着工具性作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Sayings and doings in practices: Enhancing practice-driven institutionalism with insights from the philosophy of embodiment
The practice-driven perspective in organizational institutionalism has proposed that what actors say and do is decisive for the enactment of practices in everyday situations. However, this perspective has predominantly considered the role of doings and has disregarded the distinct role of sayings used in everyday situations. Our theoretical argument proposes the co-constitutive coexistence of sayings and doings in the enactment of practices that explains why and when doings inform specific sayings and why and when sayings prefigure specific doings. Theorizing this coexistence reveals when it is that sayings bolster the reproduction and stabilization of doings, when they contribute to change, and when sayings cannot coordinate doings because actors literally cannot understand one another. We argue that the consideration of the coexistence of sayings and doings is relevant for practice-driven institutionalism, as it enables the differentiation of the situated impact of doings and sayings on the development of practices. To develop this argument, we build on insights from the embodiment perspective within the philosophy of mind (i.e., philosophy of embodiment), which suggests that the body and its sensorimotor states in practices play an instrumental role in cognition and language use.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Organization Studies
Organization Studies MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
11.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
76
期刊介绍: Organisation Studies (OS) aims to promote the understanding of organizations, organizing and the organized, and the social relevance of that understanding. It encourages the interplay between theorizing and empirical research, in the belief that they should be mutually informative. It is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal which is open to contributions of high quality, from any perspective relevant to the field and from any country. Organization Studies is, in particular, a supranational journal which gives special attention to national and cultural similarities and differences worldwide. This is reflected by its international editorial board and publisher and its collaboration with EGOS, the European Group for Organizational Studies. OS publishes papers that fully or partly draw on empirical data to make their contribution to organization theory and practice. Thus, OS welcomes work that in any form draws on empirical work to make strong theoretical and empirical contributions. If your paper is not drawing on empirical data in any form, we advise you to submit your work to Organization Theory – another journal under the auspices of the European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) – instead.
期刊最新文献
Media Review: The Untapped Power of Discovery Embodied Shame and Organization Studies Media Review: Extrapolations - A View from OS4F Media Review: The Value of Reputation Media Review: Reorganizing the world –Postcolonial Transitions and Navigating Nationalism in global business history
×
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