{"title":"组织研究中的社区:回顾与制度逻辑视角","authors":"A. Georgiou, Daniel Arenas","doi":"10.1177/26317877231153189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"More than a decade ago, Thornton and colleagues added community to the inter-institutional system and argued that the community logic shapes individual and organizational behavior, determines organizing principles, and influences community–organization relationships. In justifying this addition and defining the ideal type, they drew mostly upon the literature on local communities and organizations. However, the increasing relevance of other types of communities to organization studies necessitates a re-examination and further specification of this framework. This article starts with a review of 172 papers from highly ranked organization and management journals over the last 30 years and summarizes insights on four types of communities for which discussion has flourished: communities of place, of practice, of users, and of firms. This is followed by pattern matching to explore whether these four types follow the initial description of the community logic. We find four variants of the community logic, one for each type of community. We show that all the reviewed types organize around a common boundary, which yields a new definition of the community logic. This commonality also offers scope for comparative research and reconceptualization of community–organization relationships. Furthermore, by specifying the organizing principles that vary, we extend previous research and explicate the main underpinnings of community organizing. The paper ends by suggesting avenues for future research that further embrace an institutional logics perspective on communities.","PeriodicalId":50648,"journal":{"name":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Community in Organizational Research: A Review and an Institutional Logics Perspective\",\"authors\":\"A. Georgiou, Daniel Arenas\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/26317877231153189\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"More than a decade ago, Thornton and colleagues added community to the inter-institutional system and argued that the community logic shapes individual and organizational behavior, determines organizing principles, and influences community–organization relationships. In justifying this addition and defining the ideal type, they drew mostly upon the literature on local communities and organizations. However, the increasing relevance of other types of communities to organization studies necessitates a re-examination and further specification of this framework. This article starts with a review of 172 papers from highly ranked organization and management journals over the last 30 years and summarizes insights on four types of communities for which discussion has flourished: communities of place, of practice, of users, and of firms. This is followed by pattern matching to explore whether these four types follow the initial description of the community logic. We find four variants of the community logic, one for each type of community. We show that all the reviewed types organize around a common boundary, which yields a new definition of the community logic. This commonality also offers scope for comparative research and reconceptualization of community–organization relationships. Furthermore, by specifying the organizing principles that vary, we extend previous research and explicate the main underpinnings of community organizing. The paper ends by suggesting avenues for future research that further embrace an institutional logics perspective on communities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50648,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877231153189\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877231153189","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Community in Organizational Research: A Review and an Institutional Logics Perspective
More than a decade ago, Thornton and colleagues added community to the inter-institutional system and argued that the community logic shapes individual and organizational behavior, determines organizing principles, and influences community–organization relationships. In justifying this addition and defining the ideal type, they drew mostly upon the literature on local communities and organizations. However, the increasing relevance of other types of communities to organization studies necessitates a re-examination and further specification of this framework. This article starts with a review of 172 papers from highly ranked organization and management journals over the last 30 years and summarizes insights on four types of communities for which discussion has flourished: communities of place, of practice, of users, and of firms. This is followed by pattern matching to explore whether these four types follow the initial description of the community logic. We find four variants of the community logic, one for each type of community. We show that all the reviewed types organize around a common boundary, which yields a new definition of the community logic. This commonality also offers scope for comparative research and reconceptualization of community–organization relationships. Furthermore, by specifying the organizing principles that vary, we extend previous research and explicate the main underpinnings of community organizing. The paper ends by suggesting avenues for future research that further embrace an institutional logics perspective on communities.
期刊介绍:
Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory provides an international forum for interdisciplinary research that combines computation, organizations and society. The goal is to advance the state of science in formal reasoning, analysis, and system building drawing on and encouraging advances in areas at the confluence of social networks, artificial intelligence, complexity, machine learning, sociology, business, political science, economics, and operations research. The papers in this journal will lead to the development of newtheories that explain and predict the behaviour of complex adaptive systems, new computational models and technologies that are responsible to society, business, policy, and law, new methods for integrating data, computational models, analysis and visualization techniques.
Various types of papers and underlying research are welcome. Papers presenting, validating, or applying models and/or computational techniques, new algorithms, dynamic metrics for networks and complex systems and papers comparing, contrasting and docking computational models are strongly encouraged. Both applied and theoretical work is strongly encouraged. The editors encourage theoretical research on fundamental principles of social behaviour such as coordination, cooperation, evolution, and destabilization. The editors encourage applied research representing actual organizational or policy problems that can be addressed using computational tools. Work related to fundamental concepts, corporate, military or intelligence issues are welcome.