MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597892529 · doi:10.1177/0149206317699522

Pathways of Institutional Change: An Integrative Review and Research Agenda

2017· article· en· W2597892529 on OpenAlexaff
Evelyn Micelotta, Michael Lounsbury, Royston Greenwood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyScholarshipInstitutional changePerspective (graphical)Relevance (law)Institutional theorySociologyPolitical scienceEpistemologyPositive economicsEngineering ethicsSocial scienceEconomicsPublic administrationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of institutional change is a core research area in organization theory and is of increasing relevance for scholarship in other disciplines. In this article, we review the substantial number of studies that have examined the ways by which institutions are created, modified, or transformed, highlighting the lack of integration of prior works that emphasize exogenous shocks, institutional entrepreneurship, and practice-based change. Drawing on the institutional logics perspective, we then develop a novel typology of pathways of change that more comprehensively brings together this diverse literature, accounts for the richness and heterogeneity of institutional change processes unveiled by studies to date, and provides a more synthetic framework to guide future research. Based on our analysis and theorizing, we discuss important new scholarly directions that will enhance our understanding of different kinds of institutional change processes and outcomes, as well as contribute to further development of the institutional logics perspective.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0140.019
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.163
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations366
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ManagementSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207