The Liminality of Trajectory Shifts in Institutional Entrepreneurship

References

• Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design Rules—The Power of Modularity (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barley SR (2008) Coalface institutionalism. Greenwood R, Oliver C, Sahlin K, Suddaby R, eds. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (Sage, London), 490–515.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barrett M, Oborn E, Orlikowski WJ, Yates J (2012) Reconfiguring boundary relations: Robotic innovations in pharmacy work. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1448–1466.Link, Google Scholar
• Battilana J (2011) The enabling role of social position in diverging from the institutional status quo: Evidence from the UK national health service. Organ. Sci. 22(4):817–834.Link, Google Scholar
• Battilana J, Leca B, Boxenbaum E (2009) How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Acad. Management Ann. 3(1):65–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benson JK (1977) Organizations: A dialectical view. Admin. Sci. Quart. 22(1):1–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berente N, Yoo Y (2012) Institutional contradictions and loose coupling: Postimplementation of NASA’s enterprise information system. Inform. Systems Res. 23(2):376–396.Link, Google Scholar
• Boland RJ Jr, Collopy F (2004) Managing as Designing (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).Google Scholar
• Boland RJ Jr, Lyytinen K, Yoo Y (2007) Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organ. Sci. 18(4): 631–647.Link, Google Scholar
• Charmaz K (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Christensen CM (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book That Will Change the Way You Do Business (HarperCollins, New York).Google Scholar
• Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1): 128–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahlbom B (2002) The idea of an artificial science. Dahlbom B, Beckman S, Nilsson GB, eds. Artifacts and Artificial Science (Almqvist and Wiksell International, Stockholm), 9–44.Google Scholar
• DiMaggio PJ (1988) Interest and agency in institutional theory. Zucker LG, ed. Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment (Ballinger, Cambridge, MA), 3–21.Google Scholar
• Dorado S (2005) Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening. Organ. Stud. 26(3):385–414.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dougherty D, Dunne DD (2012) Digital science and knowledge boundaries in complex innovation. Organ. Sci. 23(5): 1467–1484.Link, Google Scholar
• Dunbar RLM, Garud R, Raghuram S (1996) A frame for deframing in strategic analysis. J. Management Inquiry 5(1):23–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elder-Vass D (2010) The Causal Power of Social Structures: Emergence, Structure and Agency (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleetwood S (2009) The ontology of things, properties and powers. J. Critical Realism 8(3):343–366.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garsten C (1999) Bewixt and between: Temporary employees as liminal subjects in flexible organizations. Organ. Stud. 20(4): 601–617.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garud R, Karnøe P (2001) Path creation as a process of mindful deviation. Garud R, Karnøe P, eds. Path Dependence and Creation (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ), 1–38.Google Scholar
• Garud R, Karnøe P (2003) Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Res. Policy 32(2):277–300.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garud R, Rappa MA (1994) A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: The case of cochlear implants. Organ. Sci. 5(3): 344–362.Link, Google Scholar
• Garud R, Hardy C, Maguire S (2007) Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue. Organ. Stud. 28(7):957–969.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garud R, Jain S, Kumaraswamy A (2002) Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Acad. Management J. 45(1): 196–214.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garud R, Jain S, Tuertscher P (2008) Incomplete by design and designing for incompleteness. Organ. Stud. 29(3):351–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garud R, Kumaraswamy A, Karnøe P (2010) Path dependence or path creation? J. Management Stud. 47(4):761–774.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenwood R, Suddaby R (2006) Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Acad. Management J. 49(1):27–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hargadon AB, Douglas Y (2001) When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(3):476–501.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hedberg B (1981) How organizations learn and unlearn. Nystrom PC, Starbuck WH, eds. Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol. 1 (Oxford University Press, New York), 3–27.Google Scholar
• Hedström P, Swedberg R (1998) Social mechanisms: An introductory essay. Hedström P, Swedberg R, eds. Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 1–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jelinek M, Schoonhoven CB (1990) The Innovation Marathon: Lessons from High Technology Firms (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Kallinikos J, Aaltonen A, Marton A (2013) The ambivalent ontology of digital artifacts. MIS Quart. 37(2):357–370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan S, Tripsas M (2008) Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change. Res. Policy 37(5):790–805.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein HK, Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quart. 23(1):67–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langley A (1999) Strategies for theorizing from process data. Acad. Management Rev. 24(4):691–710.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leonard-Barton D (1992) Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management J. 13(S1):111–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leonardi PM, Barley SR (2008) Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Inform. Organ. 18(3):159–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levina N, Vaast E (2005) The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quart. 29(2):335–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maguire S, Hardy C, Lawrence TB (2004) Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in canada. Acad. Management J. 47(5):657–679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Munir KA, Phillips N (2005) The birth of the “Kodak moment”: Institutional entrepreneurship and the adoption of new technologies. Organ. Stud. 26(11):1665–1687.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ (1996) Organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Inform. Systems Res. 7(1):63–92.Link, Google Scholar
• Pawson R, Tilley N (1997) Realistic Evaluation (Sage, London).Google Scholar
• Pickering A (1993) The mangle of practice: Agency and emergence in the sociology of science. Amer. J. Sociol. 99(3):559–589.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sayer A (1992) Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach (Routledge, New York).Google Scholar
• Seo M-G, Creed WED (2002) Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 27(2):222–247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smets M, Morris T, Greenwood R (2012) From practice to field: A multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change. Acad. Management J. 55(4):877–904.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Strauss AL, Corbin JM (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Ground Theory (Sage, London).Google Scholar
• Tempest S, Starkey K (2004) The effects of liminality on individual and organizational learning. Organ. Stud. 25(4):507–527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thornton PH, Ocasio W, Lounsbury M (2012) The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tripsas M (2009) Technology, identity, and inertia through the lens of “The Digital Photography Company”. Organ. Sci. 20(2): 441–460.Link, Google Scholar
• Tsoukas H, Chia R (2002) On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organ. Sci. 13(5):567–582.Link, Google Scholar
• Turner V (1969) The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Aldine de Gruyter, New York).Google Scholar
• Tushman ML (1977) Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Admin. Sci. Quart. 22(4):587–605.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van de Ven AH, Polley DE, Garud R, Venkataraman S, eds. (1999) The Innovation Journey (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Verganti R (2009) Design-Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically Innovating What Things Mean (Harvard Business Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Wagner EL, Newell S, Kay W (2012) Enterprise systems projects: The role of liminal space in enterprise systems implementation. J. Inform. Tech. 27(4):259–269.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weick KE (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Yoo Y, Boland RJ Jr, Lyytinen K (2006) From organization design to organization designing. Organ. Sci. 17(2):215–229.Link, Google Scholar