Search results

The sociology of entrepreneurship is a blossoming field of research, but its scholarly contribution has been critiqued for its lack of coherence and intellectual distance from the sociological mainstream. In this article, we critically examine the theoretical presuppositions of the field, trace its historical origins, and attempt to situate the sociology of entrepreneurship within the sociological canon. We place special emphasis on the contribution of Max Weber, whose early work provides a useful template for a comprehensive approach to understanding the context, process, and effects of entrepreneurial activity. We conclude by locating contemporary approaches to entrepreneurship – including the contributions in this volume – within this neo-Weberian framework.

The Stanford School of Organizational Sociology has influenced the development and direction of healthcare organizations as a field of research in several very significant ways. This chapter will provide a focused review of the major paradigms to develop from work at Stanford from 1970 to 2000, much of which involved the study of processes and structures within and surrounding healthcare organizations during this period. As a subarea of organizational theory and health services research, healthcare organizations embrace both theory-based research and applied research, and they borrow concepts, theories, and methods from medical sociology, organizational theory, healthcare administration and management, and (to a more limited extent) health economics and decision theory. The bulk of this chapter will focus on four major themes or paradigms from research on healthcare organizations that grew from work by faculty and students within the Stanford School of Organizational Sociology: Health Care Outcomes, Internal Organizational Dynamics, Organizations and Their Environments, and Organizational Systems of Care and Populations of Care Providers. Following our examination of these four paradigms, we will consider their implications for current and future debates in health services research and healthcare policy.

In this introduction, the authors outline some critical reflections on the sociology of knowledge within management and organization theory. Based on a review of various works that form a sociology of organizational knowledge, the authors identify three approaches that have become particularly prominent ways by which scholars explore how knowledge about organizations and management is produced: First, reflective and opinion essays that organization studies scholars offer on the basis of what can be learned from personal experience; second, descriptive craft-guides that are based on more-or-less comprehensive surveys on doing research; third, papers based on systematic research that are built upon rigorous collection and analysis of data about the production of knowledge. Whereas in the studies of organizing the authors prioritize the third approach, that is knowledge produced based on systematic empirical research, in examining our own work the authors tend to privilege the other two types, reflective articles and surveys. In what follows the authors highlight this gap, offer some explanations thereof, and call for a better appreciation of all three ways to offer rich understandings of organizations, work and management as well as a fruitful sociology of knowledge in our field.

Contingency and institutional theories of organizational development are used to describe and interpret the 100‐year history of a health science university and to then make a case for teaching organizational sociology in administrative preparation programs.

Primary and secondary documents were analyzed to delineate the university's history.

Results indicated that organizational development was the result of complex institutional commitments that were challenged by and reinterpreted in the face of controversial and unanticipated contingencies. Both contingency and institutional theories help explain organizational processes. Organizational sense‐making theories from Karl Weick explain conflicting findings related to the tensions between old and new, the known and unknown, and the set and novel environmental and organizational processes.

This research shows the usefulness of organizational theory in helping administrators develop more elaborate ways of thinking about their schools. The process of theory crafting and testing encourages essential openness and curiosity in administrators.

Administrative candidates should be introduced to the content and processes of organizational sociology as a way of thinking about their leadership and organizational processes.

Organizational theory, including organizational sociology, contingency theory, institutional theory, and sense‐making remain viable in the study of educational organizations and can provide new administrators with a guide for their own meaning construction.

In this paper, we call for renewed attention to the structure and structuring of work within and between organizations. We argue that a multi-level approach, with jobs as a core analytic construct, is a way to draw connections among economic sociology, organizational sociology, the sociology of work and occupations, labor studies and stratification and address the important problems of both increasing inequality and declining economic productivity.

Power and domination once occupied center stage in organizational sociology. But as the field developed, the concept of power was marginalized and its overall significance for the drama of organization life neglected. Normative critiques of domination were recast as puzzles of obedience to authority, while scholars wishing to study the concrete workings of power regimes found themselves groping in the shadows. In this introduction, we advocate putting power and domination back on the agenda. Following the lead of classical theorists of power, we argue that organizations should be seen as scenes of struggles and as political projects to be constantly achieved and reconstructed. We critique structural and abstract perspectives that neglect the constant engagement of people in the negotiation of rules, meanings, and destinies. And we survey novel ideas that can help us to see power not as an abstract entity but as a pattern of interactions and social relationships that is instantiated in specific projects of domination and resistance. It is through this lens that power studies can be reinvigorated.

The purpose of this paper is to study the contribution of French sociology of organisations (mainly represented by M. Crozier, E. Friedberg and J.D. Reynaud) to the knowledge of organisations in the French context, specially through the “bureaucratic phenomenon”.

The author shows that the work has provided a relevant picture of some of the main characteristics of a “French way of organising”, but shows in a second part that French specificities are only a part of the authors’ scientific project, and discusses some of the reasons why it did not get a large international recognition in the English-speaking literature.

The article provides a summary of the analysis and a discussion of its relevance to the French context today. It opens a reflection about the question as to whether a sociological school based on field studies can be used outside of its original context of conception.

The author does not have the ambition of an exhaustive overview of the international impact of this school.

The author aims at a reevaluation of the contribution, for English-speaking academics, and at a development of the thinking about the use of the “strategic analysis” model.

An examination of the today relevance of the “bureaucratic” model in France, and a better knowledge of the interest of this school outside France.

Every paper needs a theme. Luckily, the venue defines the theme for me; how did the initial conditions at Stanford affect the development and diffusion of population ecology as a theoretical research program. I use the term theoretical research program reluctantly, especially considering the context of the department of sociology at Stanford University during the 1970s and 1980s (Lakatos & Musgrave, 1970). Nonetheless, I believe that population ecology can be usefully described as such. It is not a theory but rather a collection of theories developing over time with progressive problem shifts. There are methodological rules that define what paths of research to pursue and to avoid (Pfeffer, 1993, p. 613).