ARTICLE OUTLINE

PUTTING COMMUNICATION FRONT

AND CENTER IN INSTITUTIONAL
THEORY AND ANALYSIS
JOEP P. CORNELISSEN

 Institutions are all around us.

1. Besides the brute material “facts” or physical bodies inhabiting the world of
organizations, most of social reality is defined by established rules and
conventions that govern collective thoughts, intentions, and
behaviors.1
1.1. Since the 1970s, this recognition of the pervasive role of institutions
within and across organizations has led to a vast and still growing
stream of research in management and organization theory.2
1.2. It is arguably an eclectic stream that consists of studies wedded to
various theoretical traditions and camps— or “institutionalisms”—
ranging from work on institutional myths to logics and institutional
work.

2. At the same time, these studies are part of a broader neo-institutional turn
that, in its entirety, holds a central position within the field of management
and organization theory today.3
2.1. While neo-institutionalism may be a broad church encompassing
various theoretical traditions, these traditions tend to have a shared
focus on individual and collective cognition as an explanation of the
macrolevel features of institutions4.

Comment: What does “macro-level features of institutions” mean? See next page.

2.2. This cognitive focus has largely distinguished the “new”

1
Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Diehl & McFarland, 2010; Searle, 1995
2
Powell & DiMaggio, 1991
3
Davis, 2010; Scott, 2008
4
DiMaggio, 1997

Page 1 of 50
 institutionalism from the “old” institutionalism5 and has, since the
1970s, led to a considerable body of work exploring shared thought
structures, or cognitive representations (labeled as frames,
categories, templates, schemas, mental models, logics, myths,
or scripts), that constitute the legitimate ways of acting socially
in particular organizational settings 6.
2.3. Much of this body of work has been based on the assumption that
identifying such individual and collective representations gets at the
heart of institutional reality, where “the psychology of mental
structures provides a micro-foundation to the sociology of
institutions”7.

Comment: understand the critical concept so far presented; the “guiding assumption” referred here has
the following outline:
 the pervasive role of institutions within and across organizations is recognized
 creation/ destruction of Institutions is understood within the conceptual lenses of theoretical
traditions
 theoretical traditions = “institutionalisms”
 “institutionalisms” as part of the broader “neo-institutionalism” (which encompasses various
theoretical traditions)
 These traditions (“institutionalisms”) have a shared focus on individual and collective cognition as
an explanation of the macrolevel features of institutions
 “Macrolevel features of institutions” => “individual and collective cognition”
 “individual and collective cognition” => shared thought structures, or cognitive representations
(labeled as frames, categories, templates, schemas, mental models, logics, myths, or
scripts),
 “individual and collective cognition” = constitute the legitimate ways of acting socially in
particular organizational settings

3. This guiding assumption has been criticized in recent years:8

3.1. For being too atomistic in focus and
3.2. For relying on a form of methodological individualism, i.e.
considers institutions as aggregations of individuals acting in
recognizably similar ways under similar circumstances,
assigning similar kinds of cognitive meanings and motives to
5
Hirsch & Lounsbury, 1997; Selznick, 1996
6
Schneiberg & Clemens, 2006
7
DiMaggio, 1997: 271
8
e.g., Jepperson & Meyer, 2011

Page 2 of 50
 those actions.
3.3. This “scaling up” through aggregation from individuals to
macrolevel social structures is arguably a viable heuristic that is
commonplace within neo-institutional theory and research.9
a. Besides its methodological value, however, this stance can
also be seen as reducing social reality to individual and
collective cognitive categories and cognitive dispositions, as
“microfoundations” that are assumed to explain the
endurance as well as change of institutions.
b. The overly cognitive focus associated with this stance
arguably brings with it some theoretical blind spots10 and
comes at the expense of fuller and more holistic accounts of
the socially constructed nature of institutions11.

Comment: Problem with neo-institutionalism: conceptual blind spots and reduced social
reality to individual and collective cognitive categories and cognitive dispositions. As an
alternative, communication at the center of institutional theory and analysis is offered.
See subsequent parts.

 In this Special Topic Forum (STF) we aim to provide a platform for such
alternative accounts that put communication at the center of institutional
theory and analysis
1. This will address the strictures of predominantly cognitive theories and
models.
2. BY “COMMUNICATION” WE MEAN “SOCIAL INTERACTION THAT BUILDS
ON SPEECH, GESTURES, TEXTS, DISCOURSES, AND OTHER MEANS”;

Comment: This provides for the meaning of “Communication”. The Phrase “that builds”,
could mean communication that builds institutions by means of “speech, gestures, texts,
discourses, and other means”.

2.1. Thus, we adopt a broad view on communication that encompasses a

range of disciplines, theories, and methodological approaches.

9
Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012
10
Suddaby, 2011
11
Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Jepperson & Meyer, 2011

Page 3 of 50
 2.2. The main motive behind this aim is that greater attention to the
dynamics of communication has the potential to enhance the richness
and explanatory power of our theories and models of institutions.

2.3. However, this potential can, as we believe the articles collected here
demonstrate, only be realized through a theoretical and methodological
shift in our focus and analysis;

2.4. Specifically, we suggest an approach where speech and other forms

of symbolic interactions are not just seen as expressions or
reflections of inner thoughts or collective intentions but as potentially
formative of institutional reality—a point that is generally recognized
in other fields12, although this base insight has not yet been further
developed and disseminated within neo-institutional theory at large.

3. With this STF13 we set out to bring together two larger strains of research to
enrich and advance our understanding of institutions and institutional change
in and around organizations:
3.1. Cognition, and
3.2. Communication

4. Our goal was to assemble a set of articles bringing in concepts and insights
from various theories of social cognition, linguistics, discourse, rhetoric, and
media and communication studies.

4.1. In our call for papers issued in the autumn of 2012, we invited
manuscripts that would specifically leverage theoretical ideas and
insights related to communication from other areas of the social
sciences and would connect these ideas in coherent ways with our
understanding of the cognitive basis of institutions.

4.2. We illustrated this invitation with topics and research questions we saw
as particularly relevant, including:
a. the suggestion of re- thinking and remodeling categorization and
legitimization processes from a communication perspective, and
b. exploring the role of broadcast and social media in not only
transmitting or carrying but also shaping institutional logics and
frames.

12
Heritage, 2004; Searle, 1995
13
special topic forum

Page 4 of 50
 4.3. We particularly encouraged sub- missions that would introduce new
constructs or concepts related to communication into institutional
theory, such as:
a. voice,
b. dialogue, and
c. speech acts,
4.4. Thus going beyond traditions like rhetoric and discourse that already
have some traction within institutional research.

5. Our enthusiasm for this topic met with a similar enthusiasm from researchers
in the field, with sixty submissions that in one way or another examined the
role of communication or communication-related concepts such as:
5.1. audiences,
5.2. genres, and
5.3. discourse

6. In reading through these papers, we noticed:

6.1. Potential of inserting a stronger emphasis on communication into
institutional theory and analysis.

7. To advance our understanding of institutions:

7.1. Introduce new communication-related constructs and models
7.2. Introduce potentially alternative theoretical grounds
7.3. Focus should not be limited on more conventional perspectives in
institutional theory;
8. Another striking observation was the difference between papers in their
assumptions regarding speech and communication:
8.1. how aspects of speech and communication as reflective of particular
cognitive outcomes or representations
a. Speech communications as providing window into the cognitive
processes of institutional maintenance or change

8.2. How speech and communication are formative, or constitutive, of a

particular institution and thus bring about cognitive outcomes.

9. In order to place the articles in context,

9.1. We first describe the over- all promise and potential implications of
bringing a stronger communication focus into institutional theory and
analysis.
9.2. We then introduce the articles and their central contributions, and

Page 5 of 50
 9.3. We conclude by sketching a research agenda and suggesting a
number of directions for further theory development and research.

COMMUNICATION, COGNITION, AND INSTITUTIONS: AN OVERVIEW

OF THEORETICAL APPROACHES

Comment: Three theories/ approaches are offered. The focus is on the importance of
Communication in cognition, and their significance to Institutional analysis. The
evolution of concepts must be read carefully with a specific aim: to situate emergent
leadership in the overall theory of Communications and Institutional Change.

COMMUNICATION AS A CONDUIT
(FIRST APPROACH)

1. Traditional accounts of institutionalization and institutional change have

backgrounded communication or treated it as a black box14.

1.1. The direct consequence of this neglect is the introduction of: conduit
model of communication: communication is largely assumed to
operate as a conduit or channel through which cognitive content (such
as information or semantic meaning) is disseminated and spread across
an institutional setting or field.15

1.2. conduit model of communication: Cognitive content and pragmatic

intentions of actors are easily transferred to other actors

a. Effectiveness of such transfers being primarily mediated

i. by the cognitive capacity to process information of the actors
involved and

ii. By the social ties of the actors involved.

2. An obvious limitation of models built on this “conduit metaphor” is their

underlying epistemology:16

14
Suddaby, 2011
15
Beckert, 2010; Thornton et al., 2012
16
Reddy, 1979

Page 6 of 50
 2.1. which considers communication17 as an uncomplicated process of
sending and receiving messages;

(Comment: Communication is more than sending and receiving messages)

2.2. Semantic or pragmatic outcomes are already largely prefigured and

predetermined by actors initiating the communication.

(Comment: Semantic or pragmatic outcomes may not come prefigured and

predetermined by actors initiating the communication)

2.3. Underplays degrees of agency that both sending and receiving actors
may have in processes of communication and meaning
construction.18

(Comment: what does “degrees of agency” mean? And why it should not be
underplayed in communication?”)

2.4. It further treats language and cognition as isomorphic

(Comment: or, as if the two share the exact same structure and therefore they are
essentially indistinguishable)

3. When language is thus understood as merely a means to encode, transfer,

and decode cognitive contents between communicating actors, it is also
assumed to offer a direct window into individual and collective cognition as
it exists in an institutional setting or field at a particular point in time.

3.1. The common measurement strategy among neo-institutional

researchers has indeed been “to use actors’ discursive output as
topics for analysis, that is, as documentation of cognitive frames,
principles, or institutional logics”19.

3.2. They (Comment: Who are “they”) critique this strategy (Comment:
“to use actors’ discursive output as topics for analysis, that is, as
documentation of cognitive frames, principles, or institutional
logics;), and the conduit metaphor on which it rests, by:
17
or, indeed, any acts of symbolic meaning construction
18
Schober & Brennan, 2003
19
Schneiberg and Clemens 2006: 211

Page 7 of 50
 a. Emphasizing that actors may be working from different
cognitive principles and schemes than what they communicate in
public;

b. Actors may also not “‘mean what they say’ in the sense that
discursive output does not flow directly from cognition”.20

Comment: This is a critique directed to the whole of Communications Theory. See how this
is resolved.

PERFORMATIVE APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE AND INSTITUTIONS

(SECOND APPROACH)

 The limitations of the conduit image are to some extent offset by performative
approaches to communication that, since the early 2000s, have been introduced
into neo-institutional theory.

1. performative approaches are also called rhetorical institutionalism21:

a. theory and research on framing22

Comment: In communication, “framing” is a narrative technique in which a story is

surrounded by a secondary story, creating a story within a story

b. Tropes
(Comment: Derived from the Greek word tropos, which means, 'turn, direction, way,'
tropes are figures of speech that move the meaning of the text from literal to figurative)

c. Discourse 23,
(Comment: verbal interchange of ideas especially: conversation)

d. Rhetoric24
(Comment: use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.)
All of the foregoing within institutional settings and fields

2. A key assumption of these approaches is that any collective cognition or joint

understanding that forms the basis for institutions is constantly produced, or
reproduced, in the use and exchange of language as a central part of

20
Ibid.
21
Green & Li, 2011
22
Fiss & Zajac, 2006
23
Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy, 2004
24
Green, 2004

Page 8 of 50
 communication25 and NOT simply preexisting and accessed or shared by
individuals.

3. Specifically, performative approaches assume that any cognitive contents and

inferences for institutionally prescribed actions are produced and realized
through and in the use of language.26
3.1. Language (but conceivably also other symbolic expressions, such as
gestures and bodily signals) has a performative role in that its use
pragmatically affects actors in their thoughts and behaviors:
a. Language (use) initiates broader cognitive change at the level of an
institutional field.

(Comment: What precisely is “institutional field”?)

b. Rhetoric and discourse in the context of institutions 27, as ways of

(re)producing institutions, and
c. Explore how linguistic choices or alterations to a linguistic repertoire
may, in turn, initiate processes of institutional change. 28

Comment: The linguistic repertoire is the set of skills and knowledge a person has of one or
more languages, as well as their different varieties. Therefore, the learner's linguistic repertoire
is the base upon which their learning can progress.

 The advantage of these performative approaches is that, compared to a strict

conduit model, they consider language not as a neutral, external window into
cognition but as performative and, thus, to a greater or lesser extent formative of
the cognitive basis of institutions, as well as of any changes to such institutions.

Conduit Model Performative Approaches

Conduit model of communication: A key assumption of these approaches is

communication is largely assumed to that any collective cognition or joint
operate as a conduit or channel understanding that forms the basis for
through which cognitive content (such institutions is constantly produced, or
as information or semantic meaning) is reproduced, in the use and exchange of
disseminated and spread across an language as a central part of
institutional setting or field. communication and NOT simply

25
Green, 2004; Phillips et al., 2004
26
Green, Li, & Nohria, 2009; Phillips et al., 2004
27
for example, focus on the structure and characteristics of the language being used (such as certain
keywords, idioms, or rhetorical arguments) by actors
28
e.g., Green & Li, 2011; Jones, Maoret, Massa, & Svejenova, 2012; Maguire, Hardy, & Lawrence, 2004

Page 9 of 50
 preexisting and accessed or shared by
individuals

Cognitive content and pragmatic Performative approaches assume that any

intentions of actors are easily cognitive contents and inferences for
transferred to other actors; institutionally prescribed actions are
Effectiveness of such transfers being produced and realized through and in the
primarily mediated by the cognitive use of language
capacity to process information of the
actors involved and By the social ties
of the actors involved

1. Hence, these traditions accord a much more central role to all forms of
discourse, including rhetoric, framing, messages, vocabularies, and narratives
within neo-institutional theory and analysis.

2. Some of these approaches, such as the work drawing from framing and new
rhetoric, grant a degree of agency to individual actors and tend to have a
situated focus on the way in which the use of certain words or phrases, as
alternative framings, may trigger or initiate broader cognitive change within an
institutional setting or field29.

3. Other approaches, such as Foucauldian or critical discourse analysis,

however, consider the formative role and effect of language as strong and
almost all-encompassing, assuming that broader discourses or rhetorical
vocabularies “bear down” on individual actors, have a hold over them (in a
Foucauldian sense even “work through them”), and, in doing so, reproduce
and thus maintain institutions30.

Comment: How does Critical Discourse Analysis relate to Emergent Leadership?

 These various performative traditions differ in their epistemological assumptions,

but they nonetheless share the broader assumption that language use, akin to a
physical force31, may produce or engender cognitive reactions.

1. The pragmatic force of language, then, is its capacity to effectuate cognitive

change, with the choice of certain words (such as slogans, metaphors, and

29
Green et al., 2009; Rhee & Fiss
30
Phillips et al., 2004
31
Talmy, 2000

Page 10 of 50
 idioms) and grammatical or stylistic features having a direct impact on
individuals and groups within an institutional setting or field.

2. Performative approaches often tend to start analyses with a focus on certain

actors, as “speakers,” in key discursive positions and analyze the
characteristics of their language use (given that their language has a direct
impact, to a greater or lesser extent, on other actors, as “listeners”)

Comment: Is Leader emergence a function of language use? A result of discourse or a

byproduct of bargaining?

3. The basic point here is that these performative approaches tend to be

asymmetrical:
3.1. They effectively start with the pragmatic aspect of speakers’ intentions
but largely neglect listeners as active agents, who are instead cast as
a speaker-in-waiting whose basic role is to respond (or not) to a
speaker’s rhetoric or discourse.32
3.2. This also implies that the intentions and acts of a speaker are usually
privileged over those of the listener or recipient, as opposed to viewing
their communication as a joint activity.

Comment: This is a critique of the performative approaches.

3.3. Sweetser (1990) explained this asymmetrical emphasis by suggesting

that performative approaches such as speech act theory, rhetoric, and
discourse theory still hark back to a basic conduit or transfer model of
communication33.
a. That is, a speech act34, rhetorical argument35, or discursive
utterance is assumed to “transfer” discursive objects (i.e. the object
of discourse) from a speaker to a listener in order to create its
force36. As Sweetser notes37:

Speech acts are metaphorically treated as exchange or

transfer of objects from one interlocutor 38 to the other; the

32
Bavelas, Coates, & Johnson, 2000
33
Searle, 1969
34
Speaker’s intention and the effect it has on a listener. Essentially, it is the action that the speaker
hopes to provoke in his or her audience.
35
A Rhetorical Argument is basically a persuasive argument that uses one or a combination of its three
distinct "appeals": Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. That is, a claim may be argued and may be supported
through a reference to the reputation, character or authority of the speaker.
36
Quinn & Dutton, 2005
37
Sweetser 1990: 20
38
a person who takes part in a dialogue or conversation.

Page 11 of 50
 objects are linguistic forms, which are containers for
meaning. This object-exchange metaphor for speech
exchange has been analyzed under the name of the ‘conduit
metaphor’.39

LANGUAGE AS A FORCE

 Performative approaches maintain the premise of a basic conduit model as an

image of communication:
1. The main focus of performative approaches is on language as a “force”40
directly shaping cognitive outcomes in “other” actors across an institutional
setting or field

2. The effect of language is direct, rather than:

2.1. Episodes or events of communication, including characteristics of the

communicating actors, the media used to carry messages, and

2.2. The way in which actors adapt and respond to each other as part of
their interactions41.

3. This notion of language as a force may align well with the notion of
institutional settings and fields harboring forces that condition and constrain
actors in their thoughts and behaviors.42

4. At the same time “language as a force” presupposes a rather linear form of

causality43 around the “net effects” realized by a competition between
rhetorical vocabularies or “discourses in a field” 44 , as opposed to theorizing
more complex forms of causality associated with institutional maintenance
and change.45

39
Reddy, 1979
40
Sweetser, 1990; Traugott, 1991; Traugott & Dasher, 2005
41
Ashcraft, Kuhn, & Cooren, 2009; Steinberg, 1998
42
Powell & DiMaggio, 1991
43
Clark, 1996
44
Discourse in a field, or “field of discourse” is defined as “the total event, in which the text is
functioning, together with the purposive activity of the speaker or writer; it thus includes the
subject-matter as one element in it” (Halliday 1994, 22). The field describes activities and processes
that are happening at the time of speech.
45
Delbridge & Fiss, 2013

Page 12 of 50
Comment: Explore - communication as an event of leader emergence; or, emergent
leadership as inherent by-product of institutionalism/ institution creation mediated or
made possible because of language and communication. Relate: Leader emergence is
temporal (they emerge at a given time and last for a time) with the Institutional Theory
that institutions are constantly being created and reproduced through Communication,
discourse, speech acts, or Language use. These shared attributes signal the conceptual
possibility that when one emerges, the other, somewhere, has already emerged or is in
the process of emerging. For example, when a leader has emerged, it may be because
a new contour, or a change in the “institutional field”, is emerging for the Institution. In
this scenario, emergent leaders manifest the emergent institution, and these
simultaneous and convergent emergence happens in communication.

COMMUNICATION AS CONSTITUTIVE OF INSTITUTIONS

(THIRD APPROACH)

 These points bring us to a third approach to communication and cognition in the

context of institutions.

1. We label this approach communicative institutionalism since it draws on an

image of communication as a joint activity within which both speakers and
addressees coproduce, moment by moment, an understanding of their social
relationship and joint understanding46.

Comment: explore concept: Emergent Leadership, as an image of leadership that is

BUILT on a co-creative process, a joint activity within which both the leader emergent
and Team members, through discourse and language-use, co-produce, moment by
moment, an understanding of their relationship and the living out of this joint
understanding.

1.1. In this view, then, communication is seen as “the ongoing, dynamic,

interactive process of manipulating symbols toward the creation,
maintenance, destruction, and/or transformation of meanings, which
are axial—not peripheral—to organizational existence and organizing
phenomena”47.

Comment: leadership emergence is a continuum, an ongoing, dynamic, interactive

process involving the manipulation of symbols and the use of language towards the

46
Tuomela, 2002
47
Ashcraft et al., 2009: 22

Page 13 of 50
creation, maintenance, destruction, and/or transformation of meanings, WITHIN
organizational existence and institutional field.

1.2. Put differently, communication is a process through which collective

forms such as institutions are constructed in and through interaction,
instead of being merely a conduit for enacting discourses 48.

1.3. Echoing Dewey’s famous statement, the premise here is that collective
forms such as “society not only. . . [continue] to exist by transmission,
by communication, but it may fairly be said to exist in transmission, in
communication”49

1.4. In this sense communication, in the form of continuous interactions at

multiple levels and with multiple potential outcomes, is seen to
constitute institutions.

a. This view does not negate the performative character of

language50, which is, in fact, crucial for exploring the constitutive
nature of communication51.

b. Nor does it argue that institutions are not manifested in

communication52.

c. Instead, it emphasizes that any performance is as much the

product of the agent that/who is deemed performing it as the
product of the people who attend and interpret/ respond to such
performance. . . [and thus] any performance will never be reducible
to the way it was intended or meant by its producer 53.

d. In other words, the joint cognitive understandings and meanings

that emerge (in ongoing fashion) from communication are unlikely
to be isomorphic with the original intentions of the multiple
participants engaged in it.

48
Ashcraft & Mumby, 2004
49
Dewey, 1944/1916: 4
50
Aka Performativity, or the concept that language can function as a form of social action and
have the effect of change
51
Cooren, Kuhn, Cornelissen, & Clark, 2011
52
Lammers, 2011; Lammers & Barbour, 2006
53
Cooren et al., 2011: 1152

Page 14 of 50
 e. Ambiguity, indeterminacy, and heterogeneity across actors are to
be expected54, suggesting, in turn, a more complex set of
interactions and ensuing institutional outcomes than is often
provided by more linear accounts around hegemonic discourses55,
effective rhetoric,56 and institutional entrepreneurs.57

 Institutions, as common cognitive understandings, are, importantly, also an

emergent effect, or outcome, of ongoing processes of communication between
diverse actors.

Comment: Leadership and Institutions, in communication, are both emergent.

Communication makes possible the emergence.

1. Rather than casting institutions as entities at a different level of analysis and

divorced from acts and practices of discourse and communication, we
advocate for a perspective that accounts for the communicative constitution,
maintenance, and transformation of institutions.
1.1. This latter point may be the most radical for neo-institutional scholars,
since it seems to go against the common tendency to oppose
structure and action and macro and micro levels of analysis.

54
Seo & Creed, 2002
55
The story that the ruling class tells. It justifies their power.
56
Rhetorical appeals are the qualities of an argument that make it truly persuasive. To make a
convincing argument, a writer appeals to a reader in several ways. The four different types of
persuasive appeals are logos, ethos, pathos, and kairos. Logos, the appeal to logic, is used to
convince an audience with reason. Logos would contain a clear message and cite facts, statistics,
authorities, and literal analogies. Ethos, the ethical appeal, is used to convince an audience of the
author’s credibility or character. Authors develop ethos by sounding fair or unbiased or by introducing
their expertise or background. Pathos, the emotional appeal, is used to invoke sympathy with
meaningful language, a moving tone, or touching stories. Kairos describes the most suitable time and
place for making an argument and the most opportune ways of expressing it. An example of using all
four appeals would be that in making a request, we might give a logical reason for the request, show
why we deserve it, make an emotional appeal, and present the request at an appropriate time.
57
The term “institutional entrepreneurship” refers to the “activities of actors who have an interest in
particular institutional arrangements and who leverage resources to create new institutions or to
transform existing ones” (Maguire S, Hardy C, Lawrence TB. Institutional entrepreneurship in
emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Acad Manage J. 2004;47:657–79., p. 657).
The term is most closely associated with DiMaggio (DiMaggio P. Interest and agency in institutional
theory. In: Zucker L, editor. Institutional patterns and culture. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger; 1988. p. 3–
22., p. 14), who argued that “new institutions arise when organized actors with sufficient resources see
in them an opportunity to realize interests that they value highly.” These actors – institutional
entrepreneurs – “create a whole new system of meaning that ties the functioning of disparate sets of
institutions together” (Garud R, Jain S, Kumaraswamy A. Institutional entrepreneurship in the
sponsorship of common technological standards: the case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Acad
Manage J. 2002;45:196–214.). Institutional entrepreneurship is therefore a concept that reintroduces
agency, interests, and power into institutional analyses of organizations

Page 15 of 50
 1.2. Yet the key suggestion is not to do away with those dualisms but to
recognize the fundamental importance of communication, which
requires theory and analysis that are, “grounded in action” 58 and,
thus, “inhabited” in the first place.59

1.3. Institutions, in other words, are performed and negotiated on the terra
firma of local, situated interactions60.

1.4. The resulting emergent outcomes—in terms of maintaining or

changing an institution—may be confined to a specific set of
interacting actors but may also spread and be more widely shared
across a group of actors and organizations in an institutional field 61.

Comment: This further supports the proposition that institutions are not “teams” in
emergent leadership theory, but interacting teams and individuals in an institutional
field.

1.5. Significantly, such spread and diffusion is itself contingent on

communication.

2. This interactive model of communication has not yet been fully explored in the
context of institutions. There are, however, some scholars who are starting to study
and analyze institutions from this perspective62

Comment: Explore this communications theory in detail, see footnote.

2.1. For instance, McPherson and Sauder (2013) have examined

institutional logics63 in the context of negotiations in drug courts.
These authors conceptualize logics as organizing principles, figures
of speech, and arguments that are employed in interactions “on the
ground,” allowing various actors to coordinate and manage their work
and to reach consensus in an institutionally complex environment.

2.2. In shifting from a conduit to an interactive model of communication,

they in turn argue that in order to fully comprehend institutional
maintenance and change, organizational scholars must pay careful
58
Fairhurst and Putnam (2004: 6)
59
Hallett, 2010
60
Bechky, 2011; Lawrence, Suddaby, & Leca, 2011; Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010
61
Durand & Jourdan, 2012; Kennedy & Fiss, 2013; Loewenstein, Ocasio, & Jones, 2012
62
Ansari, Wijen, & Gray, 2013; Loewenstein et al., 2012
63
An institutional logic is the set of material practices and symbolic systems including assumptions,
values, and beliefs by which individuals and organizations provide meaning to their daily activity,
organize time and space, and reproduce their lives and experiences.

Page 16 of 50
 attention to the ways in which institutions are negotiated, interpreted
and enacted by individuals as they interact.

2.3. Thus it is through dynamic local processes that institutional logics are
attached to organizational activity in symbolic and substantive ways
as actors constitute and shape their meaning and relevance 64.

3. This interactive model puts communication at the center of institutional theory and
analysis:
3.1. It accords a constitutive role to communication, since it is primarily in
and through communication that institutions exist and are performed
and given shape.

3.2. The metaphor of constitution suggests that in and through interaction

actors themselves construct a common base of understanding
regulating their thoughts and behaviors.

Comment: Emergence follows a pre-negotiated standards or base of understanding

through interactive communications;

3.3. Such understanding may be contingent on prior interactions and may

make use of available communal conventions, but it may also be
affected by the dynamics of the interaction itself 65.

3.4. This view of a communicative institutionalism holds, we believe, great

promise.

ARTICLES IN THE SPECIAL TOPIC FORUM

1. Against the background of our discussion of communication and cognition, we

now turn to the five articles contained in this STF.

1.1. In our view each of these has important implications for advancing a
communicative perspective on institutions, and each pushes our thinking
about institutions forward in important ways.

1.2. Table 2 presents a brief summary of each article, describing its primary
purpose, level of analysis, theoretical base, and implications for research.

64
McPherson and Sauder 2013: 168
65
McPherson & Sauder, 2013

Page 17 of 50
 1.3. Three of the articles focus on the role of discourse and communication in
the maintenance and change of institutions at large,

1.4. Two focus more specifically on institutional processes, such as the

legitimization or abandonment of practices.

1.5. In some of the articles, existing theory on discourse and rhetoric is

extended and elaborated into novel theoretical arguments and
explanations.

1.6. In other articles new ideas and theories are brought in from adjacent fields
(such as psycholinguistics and communication theory) and suggest
promising new lines of theorizing and research.

1.7. All five articles, however, bring novel theoretical perspectives to bear on
familiar problems and questions within institutional theory and present
testable models and propositions that can be directly extended into
empirical research.

2. The first study sets the overall agenda for the STF by explicitly searching for
processes of communication that constitute the basis of macroinstitutional
logics.66
2.1. Ocasio, Loewenstein, and Nigam (2015) begin their article by noting that
while communication in particular contexts has typically been considered
as instantiating or reproducing institutional logics, the reverse argument—
that communication constitutes logics holds great potential for advancing
our understanding of the durability and change of logics.
a. Yet, as they argue, with a few exceptions 67, this causal link has only
been theorized in a limited way.
b. Rooting their arguments in a realist epistemology, their propositions
connect communication processes with the structuring effects and
causal powers of institutional logics and practices.
c. More precisely, they formalize and elaborate theory on how specific
processes of communication68 -
i. Demarcate cognitive categories of understanding,
ii. Help individuals form collective bonds or relationships around
those categories, and
iii. Link those categories to specific practices and experiences.
66
Ocasio, Loewenstein, and Nigam (2015)
67
McPherson & Sauder, 2013
68
i.e. coordinating, sense-giving, translating, and theorizing

Page 18 of 50
 d. In this way these processes constitute the very basis of how cognitive
categories become culturally shared and conventional in a particular
institutional setting.

Comment: What links leadership emergence with shared cultural experience in a

particular institutional setting or field? Answer: Communication and its processes.

e. Ocasio et al. assume, in turn, that the communicative constitution of

such categories is central to:
i. The establishment of common vocabularies of practice (with words
and idioms systematically referencing those categories (see
above)
ii. broader institutional logics, or value sets and
iii. Behaviors that are seen to govern practices in a particular setting.

f. These theoretical ideas and arguments offer a number of direct

opportunities for further research.

g. Not only can the propositions they offer on each of the communication
processes be tested directly, but further research may also model the
different forms of communication together to explore the tipping points
that constitute transitions in institutional categories, vocabularies, and
logics.

2.2. Bitektine and Haack (2015) present a multilevel model detailing the
behavioral and cognitive factors affecting legitimacy judgments69 at both a
micro-individual and macro-societal level of analysis.
a. The authors draw on research in behavioral decision making and
public opinion research to tease out the cognitive conditions and
pressures associated with legitimacy judgments at both levels.

b. They argue that institutional legitimacy judgments are characterized by

applying norms that are generally seen to be valid, whereas individual-
level judgments involve assessments of what norms are appropriate in
a particular context of action.

c. Linking these two levels, they argue that institutional change is

instigated through a questioning by actors of the general validity of
69
substantive beliefs and perceptions that influence an individual's assessment of the extent to which an
entity is appropriate for its social context.

Page 19 of 50
 previous norms in a particular setting or through the import of an
alternative set of ideas and norms that, based on their validity in other
societal domains, can equally be said to be appropriate.

Comment: Institutional legitimacy judgments, according to Bitektine and Haack (2015),

are characterized by applying norms that are generally seen to be valid. Individual-level
judgments involve assessments of what norms are appropriate in a particular context of
action. Linking these two levels, institutional change, according to the authors, is
instigated through a questioning by actors of the general validity of previous norms in a
particular setting or through the import of an alternative set of ideas and norms that,
based on their validity in other societal domains, can equally be said to be appropriate.
The actors referred to here are the ones who emerged through communications (i.e.
could be from within, or are external to the organization, i.e. news media and regulators,
etc.) and the legitimacy judgments are products of discourse, negotiating and
bargaining, in the process of determining what norms are appropriate to the context of
institutional change, as action. The field is ready for change, so to speak. Emphasis is
given to the article of Harmon, Green, and Goodnight (2015) focusing on how the
rhetoric used within a field reflects processes of institutional maintenance and change,
in particular, see discussions on “Inter-field Rhetoric”. For purposes of PJC’s paper, it is
proposed that: as language-use, or institutional rhetoric, is considered a marker for
Institutional Change or Maintenance, the same could be said with emergent leadership,
that is, language-use, or institutional rhetoric, is also a marker for leader emergence. In
other words, communication does not only enable, or result to, leaders to emerge in the
field, it also marks when these leaders are set to emerge. However, we adopt the
recommendation that we should not only view communications as “reflective” of the
change process, but also as “formative”, that is, the actual communication, or rhetorical
acts, triggers both change and emergence. Communicative action therefore stands at
the center of analysis, explaining both emergent leadership and institutional change.
This theory should now be tested in using the four categories/ perspectives of emergent
leadership, i.e. Antecedents, Mediators, Boundaries, and Outcomes.

d. Their framework also details a number of important “social actors,”

such as the news media and regulators that mediate and magnify the
processes of maintenance or change linking the individual and macro
levels of analysis.

i. Future research may explore, in a field setting as well as potentially in a

laboratory setting, the cognitive conditions and pressures associated
with legitimacy judgments.

Page 20 of 50
 ii. This model could be further extended with research that specifically
focuses on a meso-level of analysis70, involving interactions between
individual actors, groups, and organizations that, arguably, play a
crucial role in either maintaining the status quo or changing legitimacy
judgments by diffusing alternative sets of values and norms.

2.3. Harmon, Green, and Goodnight (2015) take on a similar quest in their
article, focusing on how the rhetoric used within a field reflects processes
of institutional maintenance and change.

a. They also try to characterize conditions reflecting maintenance and

change, but where Bitektine and Haack primarily focus on cognitive
dispositions in legitimacy judgments, these authors focus instead on
the homogeneity and structure of the rhetoric, or argument, that is
being used to legitimize or delegitimize a set of practices.

b. Drawing on Toulmin’s (1958) classic work on rhetoric and

argumentation, they argue that actors can use rhetoric in two
structurally different ways.

i. INTRAFIELD RHETORIC - First, actors can use the rhetoric that

is common to an argumentative field and, while doing so, largely
reiterate and accept the common grounds and backing for the
claims that are being made about a certain practice.

ii. INTER-FIELD RHETORIC - Second, actors can also use forms of

rhetoric that are more diffuse and, in their backing and grounds,
refer to other argumentative fields.


The onset of inter- field rhetoric in a particular setting, is
reflective of processes of change as prevailing norms are
starting to shift.
 As such, the authors see intrafield and interfield rhetoric as
important markers of shifts in the pendulum between
institutional maintenance and change.
c. This presents a cogent argument that warrants further empirical
research to tease out its reach and boundary conditions.

70
Meso-level analysis, detailed examination of a specific group, community, or organization,
studies certain parts of a society. Also referred to as network analysis, this approach examines the
patterns of social ties among people in a group and how those patterns affect the overall group.

Page 21 of 50
 i. For example, it may well be that in institutionally complex
environments71 different forms of rhetoric and norms may persist,
rather than marking the onset of a wholesale change to a new
institutional order.

ii. Future empirical research may therefore explore and elucidate the
details around the basic propositions presented in the article.

 We also believe, in line with our earlier discussion, that there is

promise in focusing not only on rhetoric as reflective of
institutional maintenance and change (effectively considering it
as marker or “window into” maintenance or change) but also on
how specific rhetorical acts (such as, for example, naturalizing
analogies [Douglas, 1986]) in contexts of communication may
either validate and justify already existing norms or instigate and
trigger processes of institutional change. This would cast
rhetoric, as part of communication, as formative rather than just
reflective of processes of institutional maintenance and change.

2.4. Clemente and Roulet (2015) draw on a well- established theory in mass
communication and public opinion research to develop a model of how
practices in an institutional field may become deinstitutionalized.
a. The “spiral of silence” theory (Noelle-Neumann & Petersen, 2004)
suggests that through social pressures and a fear of being in the
minority, individual opinions gradually coalesce into homogenous
public opinion.
b. This is akin to a spiraling process, in the sense that it increasingly
boosts and amplifies the voice of those who are, or have become,
the majority, while suppressing the voice of those in the minority.

Comment: The effect “spiral of silence” theory should be considered in the identification
of the emergent leader, i.e. cause of over emergence or under emergence. What is the
effect of the spiral of silence dynamic in institutionally complex environments, where
alternative opinions, in effect, may be seen to compete for attention and actors actively
strive to mobilize others to become a dominant, if not the majority, opinion in a field?

c. The authors argue that similar processes are at play around the
legitimization and delegitimization of practices in institutional fields.
d. Besides this broad parallel, they also extend and fine-tune their
argumentation to this setting, recognizing the differences that exist
71
Greenwood, Raynard, Kodeih, Mice- lotta, & Lounsbury, 2011

Page 22 of 50
 between opinion formation in society and the process of legitimacy
judgments in specific institutional fields.
e. These differences aside, the use of a grounded and well-
established theory from mass communication is an inspired choice
since it offers a set of predictions and concepts that, by extension,
can be usefully modeled in an institutional setting.
f. Empirical research may set out to test these predictions and to put
more detail to the schematic model that Clemente and Roulet
provide.
g. Such further research may also, we suggest, try to model the spiral
of silence dynamic in institutionally complex environments, where
alternative opinions, in effect, may be seen to compete for attention
and actors actively strive to mobilize others to become a dominant,
if not the majority, opinion in a field.

2.5. In the fifth and final article in the set, Gray, Purdy, and Ansari (2015)
develop a framing perspective on the formation and change of collective
meanings and interpretations in an institutional field.

a. Explicitly positioning themselves against macro-sociological “top-down”

perspectives on institutions, they set out to develop a process theory of
how institutions emerge “bottom-up” in interactions where actors frame
alternative meanings and, over time, may gradually converge on
common frames that become institutionalized.

Comment: Emergent leadership as a “process”?

b. Their process theory presents specific details on the micro-processes

at the level of these interactions that sustain and energize the adoption
of a certain frame over others and, thus, may lay the basis for broader
institutional change.

Comment: Two elements: “interaction” and “frame adoption”. Take note the crucial role
of communications on both. But what is a “frame”, and by extension, what is

Page 23 of 50
“framing”?72 Through discourse and bargaining, emergent leadership and institutional
change could be a by-product of “Framing”.

c. A further contribution of their process theory is that it combines a focus

on the content of interactions, in the form of framing:
 How interactions themselves may take on a certain structure
 A structure having an (order of) interaction through repetition
and regularity
 Structure affects the spread and diffusion of frames across an
institutional field.

d. In this way they explicitly scale up from a micro to a macro level, and in
a manner that clearly foregrounds the role of interactions and, thus,
communication.

e. Their article is probably the broadest in reach in that it maneuvers all

the way from acts of framing in specific contexts of interaction to macro
field-level conditions and outcomes.

f. Future research may draw on this process theory and add more detail
to the high-level processes and mechanisms these authors develop.

g. As Gray et al. suggest, their framing perspective is not only well placed
to scale up from a micro to a macro level of analysis but also supple
enough to be combined with alternative theoretical lenses, such as
identity and materiality, that may affect how and why meanings are
constructed, spread, and become institutionalized over time.

3. Taken together, these five articles deepen our understanding of the role of
discourse and communication in institutional maintenance and change.

72
Framing can be defined as a process in which some aspects of reality are selected, and given greater
emphasis or importance, so that the problem is defined, its causes are diagnosed, moral judgments
are suggested and appropriate solutions and actions are proposed. See Entman, R. (1993). Framing:
toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43, pp. 51-58. Frames
draw attention to some aspects of reality at the expense of others, so in order to define them we must
take into account what is described and what is left out. Framing is, thus, present in the mind of the
journalist who writes the news report, but also in the news report that he builds, reaching the reader
through a decoding process that is necessary to understand the news report and the reality to which it
refers. See A Ardèvol-Abreu (2015): “Framing theory in communication research in Spain.
Origins, development and current situation”. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 70, pp.
423 to 450.

Page 24 of 50
3.1. Four of the articles present multilevel models that explain both the
durability of institutions and the roots of change.

3.2. As such, the articles in this forum offer both general and specific
implications for empirical research moving forward, as well as some new
insights and ideas on how our theorizing on institutions can advance.

3.3. The articles in this forum may thus serve as signposts for further research,
suggesting ways in which discourse and communication can be more fully
incorporated both conceptually and empirically into institutional
research.

3.4. This said, the studies collected here also indicate the need for further
reflection.

a. A general observation is that some of their arguments are still, to a

large extent, rooted in a performative rather than a truly interactive
approach to communication.
b. This brings an emphasis on the structure of language either as
reflecting institutional conditions of stability or change, as in the articles
by Bitektine and Haack and Harmon et al., or as a pragmatic force,
energizing and channeling institutional dynamics, as high- lighted by
Ocasio et al.
c. Because of this emphasis, there is perhaps less of a focus on the role
of actors and their agency in actively and creatively using
language in communicative interactions, with the focus instead
placed on the structure and functions of language and their effect
on individual and collective cognition.
d. This is in part because these articles are anchored in theoretical bases
that are primarily cognitive and linguistic in orientation, rather than
communicative (see Table 2).
e. That is, Clemente and Roulet’s is the only article that directly draws on
communication theory, extending a model from mass communication
theory, while Ocasio et al. and Gray et al. base their theorizing in part
on concepts and ideas from interactional linguistics and
communication theory.
f. This general observation, in our view, signals the real possibilities that
exist for further theorizing that is geared more explicitly toward

Page 25 of 50
 conceptualizing the interactive and processual dynamics that link the
micro to the macro level of analysis in institutional theory 73.
g. Such theorizing would add considerably to our understanding not only
of when linguistic and cognitive categories are reflective of institutions
but of how these are being used in interactions and constitute the very
basis of institutional maintenance or change. 74

DISCUSSION: TOWARD A COMMUNICATION- CENTERED RESEARCH AGENDA

FOR INSTITUTIONAL THEORY

 In the remainder of this introduction we sketch a research agenda for the

communicative institutionalism we have proposed here:
1. Outlining the opportunities and benefits of a communication-based
perspective on institutions, institutional maintenance, and change.
1.1. The suggestions that we offer are admittedly only selective, and we
recognize that there may be many other options and pathways for
further research.
1.2. Yet the overview that we present here does, we hope, provide some
useful pointers to further research.
1.3. We structure our suggestions by genre and mode of communication
into three broad areas:
 Framing;
 Rhetoric, discourse, and logics; and
 Categorization.
1.4. For each of these areas we highlight how centering on
communication opens up opportunities to advance institutional theory
and analysis.

2. Framing75
73
Powell & Colyvas, 2008
74
Hallett, 2010
75
Framing can be defined as a process in which some aspects of reality are selected, and given greater
emphasis or importance, so that the problem is defined, its causes are diagnosed, moral judgments
are suggested and appropriate solutions and actions are proposed. See Entman, R. (1993). Framing:
toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43, pp. 51-58. Frames
draw attention to some aspects of reality at the expense of others, so in order to define them we must
take into account what is described and what is left out. Framing is, thus, present in the mind of the
journalist who writes the news report, but also in the news report that he builds, reaching the reader
through a decoding process that is necessary to understand the news report and the reality to which it
refers. See A Ardèvol-Abreu (2015): “Framing theory in communication research in Spain.
Origins, development and current situation”. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 70, pp.
423 to 450.

Page 26 of 50
 2.1. The notion of framing has already gained considerable currency as a
communication-centered approach to understanding meaning
construction in and around organizations.

2.2. As Cornelissen and Werner (2014) note in a recent review, the use of
framing as a construct ranges from microlevel conceptualizations and
effects76 to meso- level notions of strategic frames and framing 77 and
macrolevel ideas such as field and institutional frames, as well as their
contestation78.

Comment: See progression below: illustration provided by another source.

2.3. In our view, much of the attractiveness of frames as a construct for

management scholars lies in their ability to connect the macrostructural
aspects of collective meaning structures with the microinteractional
level where much of the negotiation of meaning takes place.

2.4. It is this dual nature of frames that places them squarely at the center of
a communicative approach to understanding institutions and their
creation and change, as well as their consequences.

Comment: Can Frames be used to capture process of leader emergence? Explore:

leader emergence as conclusion to Framing, or, as an alternative, a precursor to
Framing.
76
Benner & Tripsas, 2012; Weber & Mayer, 2011
77
Fiss & Zajac, 2006; Nadkarni & Narayanan, 2007
78
Beckert, 2010; Lounsbury, Ventr- esca, & Hirsch, 2003; Meyer & Höllerer, 2010

Page 27 of 50
 2.5. In particular, there exist intriguing opportunities at the micro level to
understand the interactive production and reproduction of institutions
and their logics through framing in context, where frames, for instance,
mediate between individuals’ convictions and others’ expectations 79.
Such work would also allow bridging to the inhabited institutionalism
promoted by Hallett (2010) and others.

2.6. At the meso-level, the study of strategic and collective action framing in
particular would benefit from more attention to the co-construction of
meaning in the communicative process.

2.7. For instance, recent studies:

a. have shifted attention from merely examining the choice of frame to

understanding related and much more audience-centered aspects of
the framing process,
 identity of the frame articulator as constructed by the
audience
 the context in which frames are offered (in press)80,
 the dynamics of the institutional context.

b. this work has shifted the focus toward the ways in which strategic
meaning making is either enhanced or limited by the co-construction
of meaning

c. The notion of frame resonance81 would offer interactive

understanding of how meaning is co-constructed.

d. Whereas prior research has conceptualized frame reso- nance

primarily in terms of an audience’s recep- tiveness to certain framing
strategies, the view advanced here would shift the focus further to-
ward examining, for instance, how frame reso- nance operates
through an interactive process by which the frames of organizational

79
Cornelissen, 2012
80
Cornelissen & Clarke, 2010; Rhee & Fiss
81
Babb, 1996, see also Snow and Benford (1998) who introduced the term to account for the ability of a
collective action frame to resonate or appeal to a targeted audience. They ask, “[u]nder what
conditions do framing efforts strike a responsive chord or resonate with the targets of mobilization?”
(1988: 198). In order to answer this query, one must explore both the properties of the frames
themselves and the characteristics of the broader cultural environment in which collective action
framing takes place.

Page 28 of 50
 actors and their audiences may, over time, converge, synchronize,
or diverge (cf. Corman, Kuhn, Mcphee, & Dooley, 2002).

e. Finally, research at the macro level has already embraced, to a

considerable extent, the collective construction of field or institutional
frames.

 Especially the notion of frame contests points our attention to,

for instance, the ways in which coalitions of actors promote or
challenge certain conceptions or understandings of social
reality82.

Comment: leader emergence as product of “frame contests”, result of coalition of actors

promoting or challenging certain conceptions or understandings of social reality

Issue on Framing

 While social movement theorists have proposed several

concepts, such as frame bridging and alignment,83 to examine
this process, this analysis of framing struggles has yet to
engage more deeply with the communication literature.

82
Maguire et al., 2004; Meyer & Höllerer, 2010
83
Frame alignment, “linkage of individual and SMO interpretive orientations, such that some set of
individual interests, values and beliefs and Social Movement Organizations activities, goals and
ideology are congruent and complementary.” Frame, “schemata of interpretation” that enable
individuals “to locate, perceive, identify and label” occurrences within their life space and world at
large. Frames render occurrences meaningful. Frame alignment Seen as necessary for movement
participation; Key idea is how the SMO’s ideas can be “aligned” with those of potential constituents so
they will agree/participate; 4 processes of frame alignment: Frame bridging: connect to people who
agree with you; Frame amplification: build on existing opinions to persuade people; Frame
extension: expand your own frame to draw in others; Frame transformation: wholesale ideological
conversion. Components of frames (ideologies): Diagnosis: What is causing the problem; Prognosis:
What should be done about the problem; Call to action: Why now is the time and you are the one to
act

Page 29 of 50
  For instance, the notion of co-orientation 84 would appear to
provide a helpful perspective to understand the way that
frame resonance and alignment may be achieved.

3. Rhetoric, Discourse, and Logics

3.1. Rhetoric already has significant traction as part of institutional analysis,

highlighting how communication is central to institutional diffusion and
change85.
3.2. In particular, the so-called new rhetoric 86 has been used by scholars to
explore such processes as the diffusion of practices87 and their
legitimation88, as exemplified by Harmon et al.’s article in this STF.

Comment: The new rhetoric is defined as a theory of argumentation that has as its
object the study of discursive techniques that aim to provoke or to increase
the adherence of men's minds to the theses that are presented for their
assent. Diffusion of practices is a process where a practice becomes
accepted by others. Legitimation in the social sciences refers to the process
whereby an act, process, or ideology becomes legitimate by its attachment
to norms and values within a given society

3.3. Another related stream of institutional research has drawn on discursive

theories and methods to study institutions 89. From this perspective,
institutions are constituted by discourses, and such an analysis has
been used to better understand institutionalization,

84
Broom, 1977, see Littlejohn, Stephen W and Karen A.Floss. (2009). Encyclopedia of Communication
Theory.USA:SAGE. The original source of co-orientation theory is an article written by Theodore M.
Newcomb, published in the Psychological Review in 1953, under the title “An Approach to the Study of
Communicative Acts.” Newcomb outlined his framework of analysis in this way: Communication, in its
essence, serves two ends, to establish a common orientation of two (or more) individuals with respect
to each other and, simultaneously, to link them to a shared object of concern. The originality of his
conception resides in this recognition of interpersonal adaptation as mediated by a joint interest in the
state of an objective world, one that communicators are mutually connected to and by. Interaction is
now seen through a new lens, that of some aspect of the world to which more than one person orients.
This idea of social interaction contrasted with the then popular mathematical theory of communication
associated with Claude Shannon, commonly called information theory, which concentrated on
information quantities in messages and how to encode messages most efficiently in linking a source to
a destination. Shannon and his colleagues had denuded messages of reference to interaction.
Newcomb’s innovation served to correct this abstraction from ordinary reality by reestablishing
communicative acts as embedded within both a social and a material reality.
85
Green, 2004; Green & Li, 2011
86
Cheney, Christensen, Conrad, & Lair, 2004; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1959;
87
Green, 2004; Green et al., 2009
88
Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005
89
Phillips et al., 2004

Page 30 of 50
 deinstitutionalization, and re-institutionalization processes 90, as well as
specific topics like legitimation91.

3.4. In the spirit of fostering a stronger communication focus, we believe

there may be value in further embedding discursive and rhetorical
analyses within communicative contexts.

a. This would combine the strengths of such analyses with the motives
and agency of interactants and with aspects of their communication,
including the media used to communicate 92.

b. Doing so may enrich theory and analysis and would potentially bring
more fine-grained detail to our understanding of institutional
reproduction and change as a dynamic process in which discourses
and rhetoric are used, created, and transformed by interactants,
rather than simply transmitted or channeled through them.

c. One potential application of studying discourse and rhetoric in

connection with institutions is the analysis of the
communicative construction of institutional logics 93.

 In recent studies institutional logics have been conceptualized

either as:
 higher-order structuring dimensions (such as authority,
identity, and governance) ruling organizations and their
behaviors94 or
 As arguments and associated meanings95.

 However, these two conceptualizations are not necessarily

antagonistic but, rather, can be reconciled and may, in fact,
complement each other, as shown by Ocasio et al. in this

90
Hardy & Maguire, 2010; Maguire & Hardy, 2009
91
Vaara & Tie- nari, 2008
92
Vaara & Monin, 2010; Vaara & Tienari, 2011
93
An institutional logic is the set of material practices and symbolic systems including
assumptions, values, and beliefs by which individuals and organizations provide meaning to their
daily activity, organize time and space, and reproduce their lives and experiences. See Patricia H.
Thornton, William Ocasio, and Michael Lounsbury. The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New
Approach to Culture, Structure and Process.
https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601936.001.0001/
acprof-9780199601936-chapter-1
94
Thornton et al., 2012
95
Green, 2004; Green et al., 2009; McPherson & Sauder, 2013

Page 31 of 50
 STF. A promising avenue of research concerns the study of
multilevel phenomena like institutional maintenance and
transformation, where at macro levels of analysis logics can
be seen as structuring dimensions, whereas at micro levels of
analysis logics may be considered as discursive or
argumentative flows.

Comment: Can Institutional logics explain leader emergence and institutional change?

3.5. From a communicative perspective, in further research scholars may

employ discourse and rhetoric to study how institutional logics are used
and mobilized in concrete actions96.
a. In this view actors make sense of institutional logics via discourses and
use these discourses in their interactions.
b. As such, institutional logics as proceeding from a superordinate
institutional order may be conceptualized as discourses or discursive
aspects of institutional order.
c. From the communicative perspective on institutions, it would be
important to emphasize that these discourses may be used in various
manners and situations, thus paving the way for resolving or
exacerbating ambiguity and contradiction between logics, and for
giving birth to replacement, transference, or hybridity across logics, the
analysis of which may in fact help to understand institutional
complexity in a novel way.

3.6. Rhetoric furthermore may be linked with this kind of analysis, and it offers
specific advantages for targeted analysis of institutional logics.

a. From a rhetorical perspective, institutional logics can be seen as

arguments, sets of linked propositions that in a particular social context
may exert a persuasive force on actors.

b. Across institutional fields and settings, the use and force of such
propositions may vary97.

c. Thus, when scholars study changes in field logics, they can draw on
rhetoric and argumentation theory to determine precisely how
arguments (i.e., claims, grounds, warrants, and backings) and their
underlying logic have changed.

96
Mc- Pherson & Sauder, 2013
97
Toulmin, Rieke, & Janik, 1979

Page 32 of 50
 d. An added advantage of casting institutional logics as arguments is that
it draws attention to the previously built-up communication environment
in which logics, as arguments, are uttered 98 against the backdrop of
alternative, forgotten, or sup- pressed arguments (Green et al., 2009;
Jack- son, 2013).

4. Categorization

4.1. Work on categories and categorization processes presents another

area of neo-institutional research that stands to benefit from a stronger
focus on communication.

4.2. In recent years there has been a surge of interest in work on

categorization and categories at the level of industries, markets, and
firms99.

4.3. Much of this work has been inspired by Zuckerman’s (1999) work on
the categorical imperative and by the increasing focus of organizational
ecology research on questions of categorical purity 100.

4.4. Work on categories is also turning to:

a. communicative questions around the very process of categorization
and
b. the flexible and changing ways in which categories can be
constructed, reconfigured, or even combined by organizational
actors in particular industry and market contexts101.

4.5. This complements research on the priming and effects of categories on

the expectations and behaviors of audiences:
a. As culturally grounded cognitive schemas
b. With a focus on the micro-processes of communication through
which such categories are defined and demarcated and, thus,
emerge in the first place102.

98
Aakhus, 2007
99
Durand & Paolella, 2013; Vergne & Wry, 2014
100
Hannan, Polos, & Carroll, 2007
101
Glynn & Navis, 2013; Kennedy, Lo, & Lounsbury, 2010; Vergne & Wry, 2014
102
Price & Tewksbury, 1997

Page 33 of 50
 4.6. To address these questions, scholars have recently started to define a
theoretical vocabulary better able to describe and explain both the
construction (and emergence) and effects of categories 103.

Comment: The following are now found to be “emerging”: leadership, institution, and
categories.

a. Some authors have, for this purpose, revisited cognitive psychological

research on, for example, priming and prototype104 effects105.

b. Categorization106 processes may rely on goal-based motivations 107 i.e.

categories reflect actors’ own purposes rather than preexisting
prototypes:

103
Durand & Paolella, 2013; Kennedy & Fiss, 2013; Kennedy et al., 2010; Vergne & Wry, 2014
104
Prototype theory is a different way of classifying objects. Essentially, a person has a “prototype” for
what an object is; so a person’s prototype for DOG may be a mental image of a dog they knew as a
child. Their prototype would be their mental idea of a “typical dog.” They would classify objects as
being dogs or not based on how closely they matched their prototype. Different people have different
prototypes for the same kind of object, depending on their experiences. Prototype theory is not binary;
instead it uses graded membership. Under prototype theory, an object can be kind of a dog, and one
animal can be more like a dog than another. There are different levels of membership in the category
DOG, and those levels are on a hierarchy. Studies have shown that categories at the middle level are
perceptually and conceptually the most salient. This means that the category DOG elicits the richest
imaging and jumps most easily to mind, relative to GOLDEN RETRIEVER (lower-level hierarchy) and
to ANIMAL (higher-level hierarchy).
105
Durand & Paollela, 2013
106
Categorization is the process through which ideas and objects are recognized, differentiated,
classified, and understood. The word “categorization” implies that objects are sorted into categories,
usually for some specific purpose. This process is vital to cognition. Our minds are not capable of
treating every object as unique; otherwise, we would experience too great a cognitive load to be able
to process the world around us. Therefore, our minds develop ” concepts,” or mental representations
of categories of objects. According to the classical view, categories should be clearly defined, mutually
exclusive, and collectively exhaustive. This way, any entity of the given classification universe belongs
unequivocally to one, and only one, of the proposed categories. Most modern forms of categorization
do not have such a cut-and-dried system. Conceptual Clustering Conceptual clustering is a modern
variation of the classical approach, and derives from attempts to explain how knowledge is
represented. In this approach, concepts are generated by first formulating their conceptual
descriptions and then classifying the entities according to the descriptions. So for example, under
conceptual clustering, your mind has the idea that the cluster DOG has the description “animal, furry,
four-legged, energetic.” Then, when you encounter an object that fits this description, you classify that
object as being a dog. Conceptual clustering brings up the idea of necessary and sufficient conditions.
For instance, for something to be classified as DOG, it is necessary for it to meet the conditions
“animal, furry, four-legged, energetic.” But those conditions are not sufficient; other objects can meet
those conditions and still not be a dog. Different clusters have different requirements, and objects have
different levels of fitness for different clusters. This comes up in fuzzy sets. Prototype Theory:
Categorization can also be viewed as the process of grouping things based on prototypes. The
concept of “necessary and sufficient conditions” usually doesn’t work in the messy boundaries of the
natural world.
107
Barsalou, 1991

Page 34 of 50
  this may fundamentally affect how, for instance, producers
and consumers negotiate the legitimacy of categories.

 For example, whereas in some market contexts producers

are able to convince buyers and consumers of their
capabilities and performance by referring to well-identifiable
prototypical categories, in other instances buyers and
consumers construct, of their own volition, what they consider
to be appropriate categories rather independently of any
producer’s communication.

Comment: Is leader emergence, as an event, explainable by “prototyping”, i.e. made

possible by actors who have mental image, or prototype of “a leader” within a specific
field? Is prototype, an emergent product of communicative acts?

 In both legitimate and contested industries this may lead to

important consequences, such as a higher likelihood of asset
divestments to avoid assimilation with what are seen to be
negatively valued firms in the eyes of consumers (Durand &
Vergne, in press).

 Here research could further investigate the interactions

between producers and audiences, with the following as
outcome of the motives of the various parties:

i. Cognitive categorizations

ii. The Communication that has taken place108

 In particular, empirical cases of norm infringement,

contestation, or organizational misconduct would lend
themselves well to such research that might then focus on
studying shifts in legitimacy as a result of interactions
between producers and audiences and any relevant
intermediaries (e.g., the media, rating and accreditation
agencies).

c. One other source of inspiration for categorization research is the work

in cognitive linguistics on categories 109, which, from its founding, has

108
Kennedy, 2008
109
Barsalou, 1991; Lakoff, 1987
Page 35 of 50
 been closely allied with the work in cognitive psychology but also
brings a distinct focus on how speech and language are not only
reflective of but also integral to categorization processes.

d. Two forms of speech, as fundamental to categorization:

 metaphor
 metonymy.

e. Both are often considered as figurative modes of speech, or tropes, yet

linguists and communication scholars have long recognized the
fundamental role of both forms of speech in language and
categorization in general110.

METAPHOR

f. Broadly speaking, metaphor involves an analogical comparison in

language and thought where a term or concept (called the target) is
likened to another (called the source), with the source stemming from a
category of knowledge and language use that was not previously
associated with the target.111

Comment: Can Metaphor effectively describe leadership and institutional emergence?

g. Such analogical comparisons are central to the formation of new

categories.112
 They write: “New categories become common knowledge when
a private or one-off insight applies a familiar meaning, often by
analogy or translation, to a novel, unfamiliar occasion or for
unusual purposes, and the situation and meaning then become
widely accepted”113.
 Metaphorical language and thought, in fact, tend to assume a
lateral or horizontal process that draws analogies across
socially familiar registers of language and categories of
knowledge.

110
a point taken on, for example, by Barley [1983] and We- ber, Heinze, & DeSoucey
[2008] in relation to institutional research
111
Cornelissen, 2005
112
Kennedy and Fiss (2013) see also Navis & Glynn, 2010
113
Kennedy & Fiss, 2013: 1145–1146
Page 36 of 50
 METONYMIES114

h. In comparison, metonymies rely on an exchange between parts within

the same domain of language use and knowledge.
 They involve a vertical or contiguous mapping or exchange
between parts and elements of a register of language115 and
associated category of thought.

 Such a mapping or exchange typically involves a part-whole or

whole-part substitution in speech and thought.

 A key feature of such substitutions is that metonymy often leads

to a compression, in which the whole category is reduced to a
single feature or set of features116, which accounts for prototype
effects in categorization when a specific detail or set of details is
“used (often for some limited and immediate purpose) to
comprehend the category as a whole”117.

i. Both figures of speech, in combination, are central to the establishment

and institutionalization of new categories118.

j. In this vein, category emergence can be tracked in future research by

focusing on how in the discourse of actors an initially rich set of
figurative metaphorical expressions that is used in a tentative way 119
settles and contracts over time into a discrete set of idioms and
metonymic labels that are used in a standard way as shorthand
expressions to designate the established category.

k. Following Lakoff (1987), it may well be that the interactions and shifts
between the two figures of speech within and across episodes of

114
The substitution of the name of an attribute or adjunct for that of the thing meant, for
example suit for business executive, or the track for horse racing.
115
Register often refers to the degree of formality of language, but in a more general sense it
means the language used by a group of people who share similar work or interests, such as
doctors or lawyers. Every language has five registers, which are types or levels of language
traditionally used in different situations (Joos, 1967). These five registers are: frozen, formal,
consultative, casual, and intimate.
116
Manning, 1979
117
Lakoff, 1987: 79
118
Lakoff (1987)
119
(i.e., marked by interruptions, frequent switches between expressions, or impromptu
elaborations and extensions)
Page 37 of 50
 communication may turn out to be not only reflective but also formative
of the institutionalization of new categories.

CONCLUSION

 Institutional theory has become one of the most important theoretical

perspectives in management and organizational research.

 In particular, the recent trend to focus more on the social and cognitive micro-
foundations of institutions presents an important deepening of this perspective.

 Yet we believe that institutional theory would benefit from a further shift toward
the communicative dimension.

 While it is fair to say that communication in its various forms has already been a
key part of institutional analysis, our intention with this STF has been to place it in
the front and center of such analysis and to encourage the further development
of a distinct strand of communicative institutionalism.

 Our suggestion is rooted in a more general belief that it is important to value and
advance various types of communicative approaches:
a. linguistics,
b. discourse or rhetorical analysis, or
c. communication theory.

 In this introduction we have aimed to underscore the contributions of the various

kinds of studies that focus on the performative effects of language on institutions
but have also called for further research that attends to the interactive and
communicative construction of institutions.

 The articles in this STF already demonstrate the promise of such research, but
there are, of course, many more research avenues and opportunities, and we
hope that further work might follow these examples and progress this agenda
even further.

Page 38 of 50
 TABLE 1
Perspectives on Communication Within Neoinstitutional Theory and
Analysis
Classic Neoinstitutional Theory
(including most work on institutional
Theoretical adoption, change, and logics)
Approach
Basic perspective on Conduit model of communication:
communication communication as the channeling or
transmission of cognitive contents and
intentions between actors
Link of communication Communication as a neutral transmission of
to cognition cognitive contents; communication has,
causally, a negligible role in explaining
(cognitive) institutional maintenance and
change
Rhetorical Institutionalism
(including discourse, rhetoric,
frame, and speech act theory)
Performative model of communication:
predominant focus on language as a
force that (physically) prompts cognitive
reactions in actors
Communication as an asymmetrical
process of senders with their language
influencing and cognitively priming
recipients; language (as part of
communication) has a direct impact on
(cognitive) institutional maintenance and
change
COMMUNICATIVE
INSTITUTIONALISM
(an emerging area of research
at the intersection of
communication, cognition,
and institutional
theory/theories)
Interactive model of
communication: communication
as a process of interaction
within which actors exchange
views and build up mutual
understanding
Communication involves moment-
by-moment dialogue and
interaction between actors, who
coordinate the dialogue and any
joint understanding they build
up; communication (including
but not limited to language) has
a constitutive role in (cognitive)
institutional maintenance and
change
Page 39 of 50

STUDY
Ocasio, Loewenstein, & Nigam: “How To explain how, through
Streams of Communication Reproduce specific communication
and Change Institutional Logics: The processes—coordinating,
Role of Categories”
Bitektine & Haack: “The ‘Macro’ and
the ‘Micro’ of Legitimacy: Toward a
Multilevel Theory of the Legitimacy
Process”
Harmon, Green, & Goodnight:
“A Model of Rhetorical
Legitimation: The Structure
of Communication and
Cognition Underlying
Institutional Maintenance
and Change
Contents and Characteristics of the Articles in the Special Topic Forum
PRIMARY PURPOSE
sense giving, translating,
and theorizing—categorical
distinctions and durable
principles are produced and
reproduced and form the
basis of institutional logics
To develop a model that
describes and explains
institutional stability and
change at multiple levels of
analysis by explaining the
communicative and
cognitive mechanisms
linking individual
judgments and macrolevel
agreements
To describe and explain
institutional maintenance
and change based on the
degree to which rhetoric
(specifically, the rhetorical
backing for the legitimacy of
a practice) within a field is
stable and settled or
dynamic and evolving
TABLE 2
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH ON INSTITUTIONAL
LEVEL OF ANALYSIS THEORETICAL BASE
THEORY
Micro to macro level of Psycholinguistics (e.g., Use the basic propositions to model how changes in
analysis Clark, 1996; Levinson, communication process (coordinating, sensegiving,
2000) and research on translating, and theorizing) instigate changes in
communication as institutional logics. Extend the propositions into a process
constitutive of model that examines the tipping points that govern
organizations (e.g., transitions in institutional logics.
Taylor & Van Every,
2000)
Micro to macro level of Behavioral decision Use the basic propositions to model microlevel to
analysis making (e.g., Tost, macrolevel changes in judgments related to the validity
2011) and public opinion and propriety of behaviors in an institutional setting.
research (e.g., Noelle- Extend the model to explore intermediate group
Neumann & Petersen, processes and mechanisms (at the meso level) that
2004) mediate the microlevel to macrolevel stability and change
in institutions.
Macro level of Rhetoric and Use the basic propositions to identify and describe the
analysis pragmatics: Toulmin’s rhetoric used within a field and associated with
argumentation theory institutional maintenance or change. Extend the model
(Toulmin, 1958) into more detailed rhetorical analysis of when and how
alternative arguments, with different backings, challenge
and change the default rhetoric within a field.
Page 40 of 50

STUDY
Clemente & Roulet: “Public Opinion As To develop a communication-
a Source of Deinstitutionalization: A
‘Spiral of Silence’ Approach”
Gray, Purdy, & Ansari: “From
Interactions to Institutions:
Microprocesses of Framing and
Mechanisms for the Structuring of
Institutional Fields”
PRIMARY PURPOSE
informed account of how
initial acts of opposition
toward a practice in a field
may evolve into a majority
view, leading, in turn, to the
delegitimization of the
practice
To develop a process theory of
how interactively established
frames in dyads and groups
may spread and diffuse
across an institutional field
and may, in turn, come to
structure interactions and
meanings within that field
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH ON INSTITUTIONAL
LEVEL OF ANALYSIS THEORETICAL BASE
THEORY
Micro to macro level of Mass communication Use the model of a spiral of silence at the field level to
analysis theory: Noelle-Neumann research the deinstitutionalization of a practice. Extend
& Petersen’s (2004) the model toward institutionally complex environments to
spiral of silence theory test, and potentially extend, the basic predictions.
Micro to macro level of Theory on interactional Use the description of the different framing processes to
analysis framing (e.g., Collins, trace the entire process and spectrum of institutional
2004; Goffman, 1974) change from microinteractions to macroconventions.
and structuration theory Extend the model to consider the role of identity,
(e.g., Giddens, 1984) discourse, and materiality alongside framing in processes
of institutional change.
Page 41 of 50
REFERENCES

Aakhus, M. 2007. Communication as design. Communication Monographs, 74: 112–

117.

Ansari, S. M., Wijen, F. H., & Gray, B. 2013. Constructing a climate change logic: An
institutional perspective on the “tragedy of the commons.” Organization Science, 24:
1014 –1040.

Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R., & Cooren, F. 2009. Constitutional amendments:

“Materializing” organizational communi- cation. Academy of Management Annals, 3: 1–
64.

Ashcraft, K. L., & Mumby, D. K. 2004. Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of

organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Babb, S. 1996. “A true American system of finance”: Frame resonance in the U.S. labor
movement, 1866 to 1886. American Sociological Review, 61: 1033–1052.

Barley, S. 1983. Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational cultures.
Administrative Science Quar- terly, 28: 393– 413.

Barsalou, L. W. 1991. Deriving categories to achieve goals. The Psychology of Learning

and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, 27: 1– 64.

Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. 2000. Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 79: 941–952.

Bechky, B. 2011. Making organizational theory work: Institu- tions, occupations, and
negotiated orders. Organization Science, 22: 1157–1167.

Beckert, J. 2010. How do fields change? The interrelations of institutions, networks, and
cognition in the dynamics of markets. Organization Studies, 31: 605– 627.

Benner, M. J., & Tripsas, M. 2012. The influence of prior industry affiliation on framing in
nascent industries:

The evolution of digital cameras. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 277–302.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the
sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday Anchor.

Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. 2015. The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a
multilevel theory of the legiti- macy process. Academy of Management Review, 40: 49 –
75.

Page 42 of 50
Broom, G. M. 1977. Coorientational measurement of public relations. Public Relations
Review, 3: 110 –119.

Cheney, G., Christensen, L., Conrad, C., & Lair, D. 2004. Corporate rhetoric as
organizational discourse? In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & D. Putnam (Eds.), The
Sage handbook of organizational discourse: 79 –103. London: Sage.

Clark, H. H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clemente, M., & Roulet, T. J. 2015. Public opinion as a source of deinstitutionalization:

A “spiral of silence” approach. Academy of Management Review, 40: 96 –114.

Collins, R. 2004. Interaction ritual chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., Cornelissen, J. P., & Clark, T. 2011. Communication, organizing
and organization. Organi- zation Studies, 32: 1149 –1170.

Corman, S. R., Kuhn, T., Mcphee, R. D., & Dooley, K. J. 2002. Studying complex
discursive systems. Human Commu- nication Research, 28: 157–206.

Cornelissen, J. P. 2005. Beyond compare: Metaphor in orga- nization theory. Academy

of Management Review, 30: 751–764.

Cornelissen, J. P. 2012. Sensemaking under pressure: The influence of professional

roles and social accountability on the creation of sense. Organization Science, 23: 118
– 137.

Cornelissen, J. P., & Clarke, J. S. 2010. Imagining and ratio- nalizing opportunities:
Inductive reasoning and the cre- ation and justification of new ventures. Academy of
Management Review, 35: 539 –557.

Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. 2014. Putting framing in perspective: A review of

framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature.
Academy of Management Annals, 8: 181–235.

Davis, G. F. 2010. Do theories of organizations progress?

Organizational Research Methods, 13: 690 –709.

Delbridge, R., & Fiss, P. C. 2013. Styles of theorizing and the social organization of
knowledge. Academy of Manage- ment Review, 38: 325–331.

Dewey, J. 1944. (First published in 1916.) Democracy and education: An introduction to

the philosophy of educa- tion. New York: Free Press.

Page 43 of 50
Diehl, D., & McFarland, D. A. 2010. Towards a historical sociology of situations.
American Journal of Sociology, 115: 1713–1752.

DiMaggio, P. 1997. Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23: 263–287.

Douglas, M. 1986. How institutions think. Syracuse, NY: Syr- acuse University Press.

Durand, R., & Jourdan, J. 2012. Jules or Jim: Alternative con- formity to minority logics.
Academy of Management Journal, 55: 1295–1315.

Durand, R., & Paolella, L. 2013. Category stretching: Reori- enting research on
categories in strategy, entrepreneur- ship, and organization theory. Journal of
Management Studies, 50: 1100 –1123.

Durand, R., & Vergne, J.-P. In press. Asset divestment as a response to media attacks
in stigmatized industries. Strategic Management Journal.

Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. 2010. The role of analogy in the institutionalization of
sustainability reporting. Organi- zation Science, 21: 1092–1107.

Fairhurst, G., & Putnam, L. 2004. Organizations as discursive constructions.

Communication Theory, 14: 5–26.

Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. 2006. The symbolic management of strategic change:
Sensegiving via framing and decou- pling. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 1173–
1193.

Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of a theory of structuration.

Berkeley: University of Califor- nia Press.

Glynn, M. A., & Navis, C. 2013. Categories, identities, and cultural classification: Moving
beyond a model of cate- gorical constraint. Journal of Management Studies, 50: 1124 –
1137.

Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organiza- tion of experience.

Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Gray, B., Purdy, J. M., & Ansari, S. 2015. From interactions to institutions:
Microprocesses of framing and mecha- nisms for the structuring of institutional fields.
Academy of Management Review, 40: 115–143.

Green, S. E. 2004. A rhetorical theory of diffusion. Academy of Management Review,

29: 653– 669.

Page 44 of 50
Green, S. E., & Li, Y. 2011. Rhetorical institutionalism: Lan- guage, agency, and
structure in institutional theory since Alvesson 1993. Journal of Management Studies,
48: 1662–1697.

Green, S. E., Li, Y., & Nohria, N. 2009. Suspended in self-spun webs of significance: A
rhetorical model of institution- alization and institutionally embedded agency. Acad- emy
of Management Journal, 52: 11–36.

Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. 2011.
Institutional complexity and orga- nizational responses. Academy of Management
Annals, 5: 317–371.

Hallett, T. 2010. The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited
institutions in an urban elemen- tary school. American Sociological Review, 75: 52–74.

Hannan, M. T., Polos, L., & Carroll, G. R. 2007. Logics of organization theory:
Audiences, codes, and ecologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. 2010. Discourse, field-configuring events and change in
organizations and institutional fields: Narratives of DDT and the Stockholm Convention.
Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1365–1391.

Harmon, D. J., Green, S. E., Jr., & Goodnight, G. T. 2015. A model of rhetorical
legitimation: The structure of com- munication and cognition underlying institutional
maintenance and change. Academy of Management Re- view, 40: 76 –95.

Heritage, J. 2004. Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In R. Sanders & K. Fitch
(Eds.), Handbook of lan- guage and social interaction: 103–146. Mahwah NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates.

Hirsch, P., & Lounsbury, M. 1997. Ending the family quarrel: Toward a reconciliation of
“old” and “new” institution- alisms. American Behavioral Scientist, 40: 406 – 418.

Jackson. 2013. Commentary on: Mark Aakhus, Smaranda Muresan and Nina
Wacholder’s “Integrating natural language processing and pragmatic argumentation the-
ories for argumentation support.” In D. Mohammed & M. Lewin´ ski (Eds.), Virtues of
argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario So-
ciety for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA): 1– 6. Wind- sor, ON: OSSA.

Jepperson, R., & Meyer, J. W. 2011. Multiple levels of analysis and the limitations of
methodological individualisms. Sociological Theory, 29: 54 –73.

Jones, C., Maoret, M., Massa, F. G., & Svejenova, S. 2012. Rebels with a cause: The
formation, contestation and expansion of the de novo category modern architecture,
1870 –1975. Organization Science, 23: 1523–1545.
Page 45 of 50
Kennedy, M. T. 2008. Getting counted: Markets, media and reality. American
Sociological Review, 73: 270 –295.

Kennedy, M. T., & Fiss, P. C. 2013. An ontological turn in categories research: From
standards of legitimacy to evidence of actuality. Journal of Management Studies, 50:
1138 –1154.

Kennedy, M. T., Lo, Y., & Lounsbury, M. 2010. Category cur- rency: The changing value
of conformity as a function of ongoing meaning construction. Research in the Sociol-
ogy of Organizations, 31: 369 –397.

Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the
mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lammers, J. C. 2011. How institutions communicate: Institu- tional messages,

institutional logics, and organiza- tional communication. Management Commmunication
Quarterly, 25: 154 –182.

Lammers, J. C., & Barbour, J. B. 2006. An institutional theory of organizational

communication. Communication Theory, 16: 356 –377.

Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. 2011. Institutional work: Refocusing institutional
studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20: 52–58.

Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational

implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Loewenstein, J., Ocasio, W., & Jones, C. 2012. Vocabularies and vocabulary structure:
A new approach linking cat- egories, practices, and institutions. Academy of Man-
agement Annals, 6: 41– 86.

Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., & Hirsch, P. M. 2003. Social movements, field frames
and industry emergence: A cul- tural–political perspective on US recycling. Socio-
Economic Review, 1: 71–104.

Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. 2009. Discourse and deinstitution- alization: The decline of
DDT. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 148 –178.

Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. 2004. Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging
fields: HIV/AIDS treat- ment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal,
47: 657– 679.

Page 46 of 50
Manning, P. K. 1979. Metaphors of the field: Varieties of organizational discourse.
Administrative Science Quar- terly, 24: 660 – 671.

McPherson, C. M., & Sauder, M. 2013. Logics in action: Man- aging institutional
complexity in a drug court. Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, 58: 165–196.

Meyer, R. E., & Höllerer, M. A. 2010. Meaning structures in a contested issue field: A
topographic map of shareholder value in Austria. Academy of Management Journal, 53:
1241–1262.

Nadkarni, S., & Narayanan, V. K. 2007. Evolution of collective strategy frames in high
and low velocity industries. Organization Science, 18: 688 –710.

Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. 2010. How new market categories emerge: Temporal
dynamics of legitimacy, identity, and entrepreneurship in satellite radio, 1990 –2005.
Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, 55: 439 – 471.

Noelle-Neumann, E., & Petersen, T. 2004. The spiral of silence and the social nature of
man. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ocasio, W., Loewenstein, J., & Nigam, A. 2015. How streams of communication
reproduce and change institutional log- ics: The role of categories. Academy of
Management Review, 40: 28 – 48.

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1959. The new rhetoric: A treatise on

argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. 2004. Discourse and institutions. Academy of
Management Review, 29: 635– 652.

Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. A. 2008. Microfoundations of institutional theory. In R.

Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sah- lin-Andersson, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of organizational institutionalism: 276 –298. London: Sage.

Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). 1991. The new insti- tutionalism in
organizational analysis. Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press.

Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. 1997. News values and public opinion: A theoretical account
of media priming and framing. In G. A. Barnett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progress in

the communication sciences, vol. 13: 173–212. New York: Ablex.

Quinn, R., & Dutton, J. 2005. Coordination as energy-in- conversation: A process theory
of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 30: 38 –57.

Page 47 of 50
Reddy, M. 1979. The conduit metaphor: A case of frame con- flict in our language about
language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought: 284 –324. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Rhee, E. Y., & Fiss, P. C. In press. Framing the adoption of a controversial practice:
Regulatory focus, source credibil- ity, and stock market reaction. Academy of
Management Journal.

Schneiberg, M., & Clemens, E. S. 2006. The typical tools for the job: Research
strategies in institutional analysis. Sociological Theory, 3: 195–227.

Schober, M. F., & Brennan, S. E. 2003. Processes of interactive spoken discourse: The
role of the partner. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.),
Handbook of discourse processes: 123–164. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Scott, R. W. 2008. Approaching adulthood: The maturing of institutional theory. Theory

and Society, 37: 427– 442.

Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. R. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.

Selznick, P. 1996. Institutionalism “old” and “new.” Adminis- trative Science Quarterly,
41: 270 –277.

Seo, M. G., & Creed, W. D. 2002. Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional
change: A dialectical perspec- tive. Academy of Management Review, 27: 222–247.

Steinberg, M. W. 1998. Tilting the frame: Considerations on collective action framing

from a discursive turn. Theory and Society, 27: 845– 872.

Suddaby, R. 2011. How communication institutionalizes: A response to Lammers.

Management Communication Quarterly, 25: 183–190.

Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 50: 35– 67.

Sweetser, E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphor- ical and cultural aspects
of semantic structure. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. 2000. The emergent organization: Communication as its
site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Page 48 of 50
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. 2012. The insti- tutional logics
perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Tost, L. P. 2011. An integrative model of legitimacy judg- ments. Academy of

Management Review, 36: 686 –710.

Toulmin, S., 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.

Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. 1979. An introduction to reasoning. New York:
Macmillan.

Traugott, E. C. 1991. English speech act verbs: A historical perspective. In L. R. Waugh

& S. Rudy (Eds.), New vistas in grammar: Invariance and variation: 387– 406. Amster-
dam: John Benjamins.

Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R. B. 2005. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Tuomela, R. 2002. Collective goals and communicative ac- tion. Journal of

Philosophical Research, 27: 29 – 64.

Vaara, E., & Monin, P. 2010. A recursive perspective on dis- cursive legitimation and
organizational action in merg- ers and acquisitions. Organization Science, 21: 3–22.

Vaara, E., & Tienari, J. 2008. A discursive perspective on legitimation strategies in

MNCs. Academy of Manage- ment Review, 33: 985–993.

Vaara, E., & Tienari, J. 2011. On the narrative construction of MNCs: An antenarrative
analysis of legitimation and

resistance in a cross-border merger. Organization Sci- ence, 22: 370 –390.

Vergne, J.-P., & Wry, T. 2014. Categorizing categorization research: Review,

integration, and future directions. Journal of Management Studies, 51: 56 –94.

Weber, K., Heinze, K, & DeSoucey, M. 2008. Forage for thought: Mobilizing codes in
the movement for grass-fed meat and dairy products. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 53: 529 –567.

Weber, L., & Mayer, K. J. 2011. Designing effective contracts: Exploring the influence of
framing and expectations. Academy of Management Review, 36: 53–75.

Page 49 of 50
Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. B. 2010. Institutional work in the transformation of an
organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative
Sci- ence Quarterly, 55: 189 –221.

Zuckerman, E. W. 1999. The categorical imperative: Securi- ties analysts and the
illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104: 1398 –1438.

Page 50 of 50