Search results

Robert J. Antonio is Professor of Sociology at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. His e-mail address is anto@falcon.cc.ukans.eduArmando Bartra is a Sociologist, Historian, and President of the Instituto Maya, in Mexico City, Mexico. The Instituto Maya has worked for the past 30 years with peasant and indigenous groups on leadership, capacity building, micro-credit, and related rural development projects. His e-mail address is circo@laneta.apc.orgMichael Mayerfeld Bell is Associate Professor of Rural Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, and Collaborating Associate Professor of Sociology at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA. His e-mail address is michaelbell@wisc.eduGisela Landázuri Benı́tez teaches Rural Development at the Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Xochimilco, Mexico City, Mexico. Her e-mail address is giselalb@prodigy.net.mxAlessandro Bonanno is Professor of Sociology and Chair of Sociology at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas, USA. His e-mail address is soc_aab@shsu.eduLawrence Busch is University Distinguished Professor of Sociology at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. He is also Director of the Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards, and a Past President of the Rural Sociological Society. His e-mail address is Lawrence.Busch@ssc.msu.eduJorge Calbucura is a Senior Researcher at the Department of Sociology at the University of Uppsala, Sweden. His e-mail address is Jorge.Calbucura@soc.uu.seMaria del Mar Delgado is Assistant Professor of Rural Development at the Department of Economics, Sociology, and Agriculture Policy, University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain. She is a member of the Rural Development Team at the University of Cordoba. Her e-mail address is mmdelgado@uco.esCornelia Butler Flora is Charles F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor of Agriculture and Professor of Sociology at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA. She is also Director of the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development and a Past President of the Rural Sociological Society. Her e-mail address is cflora@iastate.eduRosemary Elizabeth Gali is the coordinator of the Sociology Module of the Master’s Program in Development Management sponsored by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the University of Torino, Italy. She has worked as a consultant for most of the major development agencies and was an adviser to the government of Mozambique during the 1990s. Her e-mail address is gallirose@hotmail.comFred T. Hendricks is Professor and Head of Department at the Department of Sociology, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa. He is also Managing Editor of the African Sociological Review. His e-mail address is f.hendricks@ru.ac.zaSusie Jacobs is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Sociology of Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom. She is co-director of the Institute of Global Studies there. Her e-mail address is s.jacobs@mmu.ac.ukThomas A. Lyson is Professor in the Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. He is also Director of Cornell’s Community, Food, and Agriculture Program, and a past editor of the journal Development Sociology. His e-mail address is tal2@cornell.eduLois Wright Morton is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA. Her e-mail address is lwmorton@iastate.eduEduardo Ramos is Associate Professor at the Department of Economics, Sociology, and Agriculture Policy, University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain. He is also Head of the Co-operation for Development Chair. He is a member of the Rural Development Team at the University of Cordoba. His e-mail address is eduardo.ramos@uco.es

Volumes 70 and 71 of Research in the Sociology of Organizations combine to comprise cutting edge theory and empirical scholarship at the interface of practice and institution in organization studies. As we highlight, this interface has spurred particularly generative conversations with many open questions, and much to explore. We provide a review of scholarly developments in practice theory and organizational institutionalism that have given rise to this interest in building a bridge between scholarly communities. As signaled by recent efforts to construct a practice-driven institutionalism, we highlight how connecting practice theory with the institutional logics perspective provides a particularly attractive focal point for scholarship at this interface due to a variety of shared ontological and epistemological commitments, including the constitution of actors and their behavior. Collectively, the papers assembled unlock exciting opportunities to connect distinct, but related scholarly communities on practice and institution, seeding scholarship that can advance our understanding of organizational and societal dynamics.

Volumes 70 and 71 of Research in the Sociology of Organizations combine to comprise cutting edge theory and empirical scholarship at the interface of practice and institution in organization studies. As we highlight, this interface has spurred particularly generative conversations with many open questions, and much to explore. We provide a review of scholarly developments in practice theory and organizational institutionalism that have given rise to this interest in building a bridge between scholarly communities. As signaled by recent efforts to construct a practice-driven institutionalism, we highlight how connecting practice theory with the institutional logics perspective provides a particularly attractive focal point for scholarship at this interface due to a variety of shared ontological and epistemological commitments, including the constitution of actors and their behavior. Collectively, the papers assembled unlock exciting opportunities to connect distinct, but related scholarly communities on practice and institution, seeding scholarship that can advance our understanding of organizational and societal dynamics.

Through a survey of 200 employees working in five of the thirty establishments analysed in previous research about the microeconomic effects of reducing the working time (Cahier 25), the consequences on employees of such a reduction can be assessed; and relevant attitudes and aspirations better known.

This chapter examines the relationship between four variables indicating ethical disposition – ethical sensitivity, ethical reasoning, concern for others, and egocentrism – and trait professional skepticism (PS) (Hurtt, 2010) among 119 first-year auditors. While there has been research addressing the link between ethical dispositional factors and state PS in auditors (e.g., Shaub & Lawrence, 1996), there is a lack of research into the link between ethical dispositional factors and trait PS (Hurtt, 2010). The results indicate that trait PS is higher in first-year auditors with higher levels of ethical reasoning, concern for others, and egocentrism. More ethically sensitive auditors do not demonstrate higher levels of trait PS, however. The results provide evidence that auditors’ ethical dispositions influence their ability to have the mindset necessary to carry out the investor protection role that requires adequate PS.

MR. DENIS HOWELL, M.P., Minister for Libraries, who was to have told Conference how public libraries had progressed since the Act, had to withdraw and so we did not find out how the responsible minister felt about us.

Studies show that discourses are important in legitimating emerging fields. However, we still lack understanding of how potential participants’ interpretations of discourses shape their involvement in emerging fields – particularly when the field’s definition is ambiguous. Drawing on an in-depth study of the emerging nanotechnology field we show that individuals’ affective responses to discourses play an important role in their decisions to participate. We find that discourse, expectations, affective responses, and participation in emerging fields are mutually constituted, and develop a model that shows these interconnections. Theoretically, our study expands understandings of discourse and field emergence by incorporating affect.

How do radical technological fields become naturalized and taken for granted? This is a fundamental question given both the positive and negative hype surrounding the emergence of many new technologies. In this chapter, we study the emergence of the US nanotechnology field, focusing on uncovering the mechanisms by which leaders of the National Nanotechnology Initiative managed hype and its concomitant legitimacy challenges which threatened the commercial viability of nanotechnology. Drawing on the cultural entrepreneurship literature at the interface of strategy and organization theory, we argue that the construction of a naturalizing frame – a frame that focuses attention and practice on mundane, “rationalized” activity – is key to legitimating a novel and uncertain technological field. Leveraging the insights from our case study, we further develop a staged process model of how a naturalizing frame may be constructed, thereby paving the way for a decrease in hype and the institutionalization of new technologies.