Experimental Research in Institutional Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognizing that institutions are enacted by individuals, this symposium seeks to draw the researchers’ interest to empirical exploration of micro foundations of institutions and institutional processes using experimental methods. Experimental research can be used to confirm (or disconfirm) cause and effect relationships that are often suggested but difficult to isolate in contextually-rich field studies in institutional theory. Although experimental research has been largely overlooked by institutionalists in the last three decades, the few experimental studies that did address institutional processes - the studies by Zucker (1977) and Elsbach (1994) - have had a substantial influence on the development of the institutional theory. The goal of this symposium thus is to help build the case for experimental methods in institutional research. Specifically, we seek (1) to facilitate a conversation on the role of experiments in the development and testing of prevalent constructs in institutional theory, (2) to encourage scholars to utilize mixed-method designs, which allow triangulation of results from “conventional” methods with experimental exploration of causal mechanisms and micro-institutional insights, and (3) to create a community of institutional scholars that pursue or intend to pursue experiments in their research.Institutional Theory and Organizational Decision-Making: From small groups to herdsPresenter: Pamela S. Tolbert; Cornell U.Presenter: Verena Krause; Cornell U.Presenter: Rachel Ruttan; Northwestern U.An Experimental Vignette Approach in Institutional AnalysisPresenter: Aafke Raaijmakers; Tilburg U.Presenter: Patrick Vermeulen; Radboud U. NijmegenPresenter: Marius T.H. Meeus; Tilburg U.Beyond Text Analysis: The unmet promise of experiments in legitimacy researchPresenter: Patrick Haack; U. of ZurichGroup Identification in the Legitimacy Judgment ProcessPresenter: Leigh Plunkett Tost; U. of Washington, SeattlePresenter: Steven Blader; New York U.Presenter: Kimberly A Wade-Benzoni; Duke U.Organizational Legitimacy, Reputation and Status: Development and validation of empirical measuresPresenter: Alex B. Bitektine; HEC MontrealPresenter: Kevin Hill; HEC Montreal
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.117 | 0.206 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".