THE IMMATERIALITY OF MATERIAL PRACTICES IN INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS

THE IMMATERIALITY OF

MATERIAL PRACTICES IN

INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS

Candace Jones, Eva Boxenbaum and Callen Anthony

ABSTRACT

According to most theoretical formulations, institutional logics containboth an ideational and a material dimension. Whereas the ideationalaspect, such as cognitive frames and symbols, has received significantattention in the growing literature on institutional logics, the materialaspect has remained largely invisible and often implicit. We analyze the16 most central theoretical and empirical works on institutional logicswith the aim of exploring how the material dimension of logics has beenconceptualized and researched. Our findings suggest that materiality hasbeen interpreted primarily as practices and structures, and rarely asphysical objects. We explore some consequences of omitting physicalmaterials as an object of study in institutional logics research and point toavenues for future research that may enhance theory development ofinstitutional logics by explicitly attending to the role of materials.

Keywords: Institutional logics; institutional complexity; practice;materiality

Institutional Logics in Action, Part A

Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 39A, 51–75

Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 0733-558X/doi:10.1108/S0733-558X(2013)0039A&B006

51

CANDACE JONES ET AL.52

The notion of institutional logics has proliferated in institutional researchover the past two decades. It refers broadly to organizing cognitiveframeworks that provide social actors with ‘‘rules of the game’’ (Thornton &Ocasio, 1999) and that operate, often implicitly, as practical guides foraction (Rao, Monin, & Durand, 2003). When Friedland and Alford (1991)introduced this notion to institutional scholars some 20 years ago, theyemphasized that institutional logics are associated with distinct societalsectors, such as family, religion, state, or market. They further proposedthat logics are composed of the following key elements: cognitive schema,normative expectations, and material practices (Friedland & Alford, 1991;Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). Whereas the more abstract aspects ofinstitutional logics (i.e. cognitive, normative and symbolic) have receivedample attention in the literature, the material (practices) dimension has beensurprisingly overlooked. Our ambition in this paper is to review the currentstate of insight on the materiality of institutional logics and suggest avenuesfor future research.

Some scholars have emphasized institutional logics as a duality. Forexample, Mohr and Duquenne (1997) highlighted the duality betweencultural meanings and social practices in their analysis of institutional logicsof poverty relief during the Progressive Era. In a landmark empirical studyof logics, Thornton and Ocasio (1999, p. 804) emphasized that institutionallogics are ‘‘both material and symbolic—they provide the formal andinformal rules of action, interaction, and interpretation that guide andconstrain decision makers in accomplishing the organization’s tasks.’’ Thisdivision between symbolic and material aspects of logics is also reflected inthe recent work by Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury (2012), who definethese two dimensions as follows: ‘‘By material aspects of institutions, werefer to structures and practices; by symbolic aspects, we refer to ideationand meaning’’ (p. 10). This view of materiality emphasizes organizationalstructure and practices, which are certainly more visual than symbolicfeatures, but which fall somewhat short of including tangible objects.

In his most recent work, Friedland (2013) extends material practices toinclude physical objects. He argues that ‘‘Unobservable substances must betransmuted into observable objects – nested and interlocked—which are themeans by which practices are anchored, affected and oriented’’ (Friedland,2013, p. 37). Thus, for Friedland, material objects are pivoting points for thepractices that other scholars emphasize in their formulations of the materialaspect of institutional logics. As such, they can be understood as animportant extension of, or a necessary condition for, the practices andstructures that many scholars associate with the materiality of logics.

The Immateriality of Material Practices in Institutional Logics 53

Although objects have not been absent from the empirical contexts ofstudies drawing on institutional logics, they have been peripheral to thearguments of those articles that focus instead on structures and practices.Practices have been interpreted as the activities, skills, knowledge, andbeliefs enacted in a role – in essence the content of a role. For example, theshift in institutional logic that Thornton and Ocasio (1999) describe in thehigher education publishing industry focuses on the skills and attention ofa CEO—an editor identifies great authors when operating under aneditorial logic whereas an MBA seeks to expand markets and sales whenguided by a market logic. Glynn and Lounsbury (2005) identify the changein a symphony’s repertoire that is played in a season: market-orientedlogics are associated with increasingly popular music incorporated into aconcert. Since roles entail values, activities, and beliefs, different roles canlead to conflict among role occupants such as doctors and administrators(Reay & Hinings, 2009) or musicians and administrators (Glynn, 2000).The consequences of these cognitive elements are revealed in structures andpractices: how roles are enacted and what practices are prioritized. Thematerial elements, however, are implied rather than examined, such aschanges in the content or types of textbooks published or types of musicalinstruments included in a concert. Practices also direct our attention to theprocesses and goals of action such as how risk is managed in mutual fundsthat aim either to protect assets or to maximize them (Lounsbury, 2002,2007). Scholars have also shown how the introduction of new practices,such as business planning, altered a museum’s goals from preservingcultural artifacts to generating revenue (Oakes, Townley, & Cooper, 1998;Townley, 2002).

Structures, the other element associated with materiality, focus ourattention on the importance of formal roles and units, rules relating roles toone another and the pattern of relations between roles and organizationalunits. For example, the creation of new formal roles was vital for insti-tutionalizing recycling as a program of action in universities (Lounsbury,2001). By altering relations between organizational units, the highereducation publishing industry shifted from using a functional formassociated with a craft logic to using a multidivisional form associated witha market logic (Thornton, 2002). The new logic of nouvelle cuisine reversedthe hierarchical role relationship between waiter and chef that existed inclassical cuisine (Rao et al., 2003). Dunn and Jones (2010) show how thecreation of a new department – family medicine – instantiated a care logicinto medical education, socializing physicians in that logic. In response,proponents of a science logic created the Medical Science and Technology


Program to counter and hopefully thwart the increasing role of the carelogic as the basis for medical training.

These studies on practices and structures bring us one step forwardtoward understanding the dimension of materiality in logics. However, theyleave many questions unanswered. For instance, it is unclear whether anymaterial objects were mobilized or changed during these shifts in practicesand structures. For instance, did textbooks change in their content ormaterial form when higher education publishing shifted from an editoriallogic to a market logic? Did Alberta museums purchase different artifactsunder the logic of revenue generation than they did under the logic ofcultural preservation? Did mutual funds create new and distinct financialinstruments when guided by the logic of profit maximization versus thelogic of asset protection? And importantly, did changes in availablematerials stimulate the introduction of new practices and structures,enabling the shift in logics? In essence, the materials that underpin, orconcretely convey, certain structures and practices seem either implicitor peripheral in many studies of institutional logics. Their invisibilitymakes it difficult to examine if materials are necessary anchors, perhapseven catalysts, for changes in practices and structures, which currentlyrepresent the material component of institutional logics in mainstreamresearch.

Materials may impact not only practices and structures, but also symbolsand ideas. As Friedland (2001, p. 141) states: ‘‘institutions have logics thatmust be made material in order to signify.’’ Although some scholars claimthat it is through ‘‘symbols that the meaning of material practices translatesand travels’’ (Thornton et al., 2012, p. 11), ideational elements are not easilytranslated, diffused, and institutionalized without a material manifestation.Ideas travel through time and space in text, such as books and newspapers,Wikipedia, and blogs, which instantiate them and make them durable. Forexample, researchers have found that people reverse their judgments whenthey physically write down ideas and throw away those notes; imaging orvisualizing alone does not reverse judgments (Brinol, Gasco, Petty, &Horcajo, 2013). Guttenberg’s press revolutionized society by making booksaffordable and thus the ideas in them available to large segments of thepopulation. Much like the Internet has done in more recent times,Guttenberg reshuffled social structure through changing who had accessto what knowledge and altering role expectations and role relations amongsocial actors. Similar to text, modern markets and financial exchange cannotfunction without computers and telecommunication infrastructure that


relay transactions and prices. Thus materials enable the durability ofinstitutions (Jones & Massa, 2013; Pinch, 2008).

Although scholars of institutional logics have included materials andobjects in their studies, they have not examined the role materials play inanchoring or catalyzing change in institutional logics. Instead, these scholarsplace materials and logics in the background, emphasizing alternativetheoretical explanations, such as identity movements, for the emergence ofnouvelle cuisine and its divergence in material practices from classicalcuisine (Rao et al., 2003). Similarly, alternate theoretical frameworks suchas design processes and technological systems are evoked to explain insti-tutional change. For example, Edison consciously tapped into an establi-shed technology (i.e., gas) to enhance acceptance of his new technology(i.e., electricity) (Hargadon & Douglas, 2001). Only recently have scholarsbegun to examine the material basis of institutional logics and explicitlyconnect distinct materials to different institutional logics (see Jones, Maoret,Massa, & Svejenova, 2012). For example, the institutional logic of com-merce for business clients demanded new building materials and new kindsof buildings made of concrete, steel, and glass, whereas the professionallogic of architecture for clients that prioritized tradition, such as the State,utilized established materials of brick, stone, and wood. Architects foughtover which materials were appropriate to include in the new category ofmodern architecture. Materials not only anchor established practices andstructures and institutionalize new ones, but are also vehicles enabling ideasand symbols to travel across time and space.

We propose to bring the tangible objects of material practices back intoinstitutional logics. The literature on institutional logics appears to haveemphasized cultural practices and symbolic or organizational structures,which we suggest are intermediate steps between ideation and materials.To reveal the lack of material in institutional logics, we apply a vocabularyapproach to seminal studies that use institutional logics. Our resultsdemonstrate empirically that institutional logics research focuses onculture, structure, and practices, whereas materials in their tangible form(i.e., objects) seem to be invisible or understudied. We then point toliteratures that enable and expand our understanding of materials ininstitutional logics. Our goal in this paper is to pave the way for studyingmateriality as an integral component of institutional logics in order toimprove our comprehension of the multiple dimensions of institutionallogics that dynamically interact to produce institutional stability andchange.


METHODS: A VOCABULARY APPROACH TO

ANALYZING DIMENSIONS OF INSTITUTIONAL

LOGICS

Friedland and Alford’s (1991) seminal paper launched research oninstitutional logics, which has become an increasingly important area ofstudy within organization theory and, in particular, institutional theory. AsFriedland (2013, p. 26) notes, institutional logics are ‘‘tied to vocabularies ofboth motive and belief.’’ Thus, we use a vocabulary approach (Jones &Livne-Tarandach, 2008; Loewenstein, Ocasio, & Jones, 2012) to take stockof research on institutional logics. A vocabulary approach examinesvocabulary structure – the frequency of key words, their relationship toone another and their relationship to exemplars that render vocabulariesconcrete and understandable.

We performed a search on all articles about institutional logics and citedFriedland and Alford (1991). We searched in two main sources: BusinessSource Complete, which is a database used primarily by managementscholars, and JSTOR, which is used primarily by sociologists (we checkedthe sociology discipline as a search). To access the volume of researchspawned by Friedland and Alford’s (1991) paper, we first searched forpublished scholarly articles using the terms ‘‘institutional logic� ANDFriedland.’’ There were 208 articles in Business Source Complete and 56 inJSTOR, a surprising result given that Friedland and Alford were trained asand engaged with sociologists. To capture specifically the role of material ininstitutional logics, we performed a second search, using the terms‘‘institutional logic� AND material� AND Friedland.’’ This latter searchgarnered almost half the articles of the former search: 118 in BusinessSource Complete and 25 in JSTOR. Fig. 1 shows the pattern of publicationsover time, testifying to Friedland and Alford’s successful launch of a newtopic within institutional theory.

Given the high number of articles caught in our second search, we optedto focus our vocabulary analysis on those articles that: (1) draw oninstitutional logics, (2) cite Friedland and Alford (1991), (3) explicitlydiscuss ‘‘material’’ as an aspect of institutional logics such as compensationplans or organizational structures, although they may not detail tangiblematerial properties or tangible objects (as opposed to highlighting their useof archival or other research material(s)), and (4) have significantlyinfluenced scholarship (as measured by citations). Using the above criteria,we identified 130 unique articles. (We combined duplicates from the two

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1987

1991

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Instit Logics Instit Logics Material

Fig. 1. Publications on Institutional Logic and Institutional Logic� AND

Material� from Business Source Complete and JSTOR databases 1987–2012.


searches and focused on management and sociology literatures, removingtwo public administration articles.) To identify the seminal or mostinfluential articles, we used Google Scholar citations to gauge the influenceof the 130 articles. We selected Google Scholar because it captures books,conference papers as well as published papers. Thus, it assesses a widerscholarly audience and emerging scholarship on institutional logics thanwould the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Table 1 reveals the impactscore count for the 130 articles, which are ordered by impact. Naturally,older articles have had more time than more recent ones to accumulatecitations and thus to impact scholarship. An inspection of the articles showsthat published scholarship on institutional logics starts before the 1991publication of Friedland and Alford’s paper. Scott’s (1987) review piece‘‘The Adolescence of Institutional Theory’’ explains the importance ofFriedland and Alford’s idea of institutional logics and cites their workingconference paper.

We selected the most influential articles for in-depth analysis, that is, the16 articles with 200 or more citations. We translated these files from PDF toRTF format for ease of analysis in MAXQDA. Appendix A contains thereferences for these 16 articles. We performed a vocabulary analysis usingMAXQDA, a text analysis program that allows the researcher to identifyand count the frequency of a term as well as the relationships among terms(i.e., the intersection of key terms in a unit of thought). To assess

Table 1. Count of 130 Publications in Google Scholar Citation Range.

Google Scholar Citations Number of Publications

0 11

1–99 90

100–199 13

200–299 4

300–399 3

400–499 4

500–599 1

600–699 1

700–799 0

800–899 1

900–999 0

1,000–1,999 1

2,000–2,999 1


relationships, we used the paragraph, understood as a completed thought,because the meaning of a word depends on the words that surround it(Krippendorf, 2004).

Our analysis proceeded by identifying key terms associated with the keydimensions of institutional logics: cognitive schema, normative expecta-tions, and material practices. We ran word frequencies on the 16 articles toidentify the appropriate forms of terms related to these three keydimensions. We coded the 16 articles for terms appearing in the text ofthe articles that are associated with any of these dimensions. We cross-checked these terms and added key terms depending on their usage in thedocument. For example, we did not include ‘‘object’’ as a key term formaterial because authors often used this word in the texts as a verb (e.g.,‘‘we object to this interpretation’’) rather than as a reference to a tangiblematerial item. We also removed the usage of ‘‘material’’ when it referred tothe authors’ research process (e.g., ‘‘we used the following archivalmaterials’’) rather than referring to an aspect of an institutional logic.These dimensions and codes are listed in Appendix B.

We used UCINET to visualize the structure or relational patterns amongkey terms and to assess the centrality of terms. We prioritized relationshipsto facilitate visualizing and identifying the most important structuralrelations by using the upper quartile tie strength as the cutoff for inclusion(in our case n=15, that is, the two vocabulary terms need to be co-located inthe same paragraph at least 15 times). To verify the visual interpretation, weran Bonacich centrality on the code relations using UCINET. Bonacich


centrality uses an iterative approach to measure influence by assessing whichnodes are connected to the most influential other nodes (Hanneman, 2013).

FINDINGS: VOCABULARY FREQUENCY IN

DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS OF INSTITUTIONAL

LOGICS

As Table 2 reveals, even in articles that include material, scholars elaborateinstitutional logics by a focus on culture (n=866), structure (n=732),meaning (n=463), and practice (n=447). Vocabulary terms that focus onthe materials of practice, which Friedland (2001, 2013) argues are essential

Table 2. Frequency of Vocabulary Terms across Texts (by Frequency inEach Aspect of Logic).

Logics 622

Cognitive

Meaning 463

Cognition 240

Symbol 240

Schema 149

Belief 103

Script 103

Knowledge 90

Normative

Culture 866

Value 298

Rule 129

Normative 116

Moral 100

Expectation 72

Material

Structure 732

Practice 447

Resource 207

Technology 158

Material 87

Investment 47

Artifact 31

Asset 29


to making immanent culture and ideas, occur the least frequently (i.e.,artifact, asset, invest, material). Overall we find that whereas institutionaltheory focuses on cognition (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006), seminal works oninstitutional logics emphasize culture and use the terms ‘‘structure,’’‘‘meaning,’’ and ‘‘practice’’ to elaborate culture.

Vocabulary Structure of Key Terms in Institutional Logics

Table 3 verifies that ‘‘culture’’ and ‘‘structure’’ are the most influentialvocabulary terms related to institutional logics, with practice, meaning, andvalues playing an intermediate role and material aspects a peripheral role inhow the most influential articles on institutional logics conceptualize andstudy institutional logics. Fig. 2 shows the relationships among the keyvocabulary terms across the seminal texts. ‘‘Culture’’ and ‘‘structure’’ are, in

Table 3. Bonacich Centrality (Normalized) for Institutional LogicVocabulary Terms.

Vocabulary Term Normalized Centrality

Culture 10.988

Structure 10.537

Logic 6.926

Practice 5.977

Meaning 5.836

Value 5.276

Symbol 4.187

Cognition 4.078

Belief 4

Resource 3.766

Rule 3.331

Normative 3.113

Material 1.945

Moral 1.914

Schema 1.821

Technology 1.79

Script 1.572

Knowledge 1.323

Expectation 1.276

Artifact 0.934

Investment 0.872

Asset 0.28

Artifact

Rule

MaterialMoral

Technology

Schema

Cognition

NormativeBelief

Practice

Culture

StructureLogic

Value

Meaning

Script

Symbol

AssetExpectationInvestmentKnowledge

Resource

Fig. 2. Network Analysis of Vocabulary Terms in Institutional Logics.

Note: Triangle: Material, plus sign¼ cognitive, Square¼Normative.


fact, more central than the term ‘‘logic.’’ In these texts, scholars rarely definewhat they mean by culture; instead, they elaborate it through associatedterms such as cognition, meaning, structure, etc. Culture may be morecentral than logics because three seminal texts focus on culture, recognizinglogics as an important facet of culture (i.e., Alexander, 2004; DiMaggio,1997; Mohr, 1998). Our key finding resonates with our theoretical review atthe beginning of the paper: material seems to be invisible or peripheral toinstitutional logics in as much as six of the eight keywords for materialreside either at the periphery (i.e., material, resource, and technology) oroutside of the graph (i.e, artifact, asset and investment).

Since material is often defined as practices and structure (Thornton et al.,2012) and since these latter two terms are central to institutional logics, wealso examined the relational co-occurrence of these terms in the texts. Firstwe searched for the co-occurrence of ‘‘material�’’ and ‘‘practice�’’ within thesame paragraph of the seminal articles. We found only 8 paragraphs out ofthe 2,623 paragraphs in the 16 articles (0.003%) where material and practiceco-occurred. The majority of these paragraphs quoted Friedland andAlford’s definition of institutional logics. ‘‘Material’’ and ‘‘practice’’ arebolded to allow the reader to more easily find their placement in the quotes.The few instances in which ‘‘material’’ and ‘‘practices’’ co-occurred suggest

Table 4. Co-Occurrence of Material and Practice in Texts.

DiMaggio (1997, pp. 276–277): ‘‘Friedland and Alford (1991, pp. 248–249) provide the most

thorough exposition and definition, describing ‘‘institutional logics’’ as sets ‘‘of material

practices and symbolic constructions’’ that constitute an institutional order’s ‘‘organizing

principles’’ and are ‘‘available to organizations and individuals to elaborate.’’

Oakes et al. (1998, p. 263): ‘‘it explicitly recognizes the political dimensions of conflict and

provides a means of ‘‘bringing society back in’’ to an analysis of organizational change

(DiMaggio & Powell, 1991a; Friedland & Alford, 1991). For example, institutional theory

implies that organizations have a material substance that exists separately from

organizational practices.’’

Dacin et al. (1999, p. 322): ‘‘[Friedland and Alford] provide conceptual tools to recognize

multiple levels of symbolic structures and material practices that contend for dominance in

framing and giving orderly meaning to domains of organizational and practical action (see

also Heimer, 1996)y. These arguments restore attention to direct and indirect network

linkages, local and nonlocal ties, and horizontal and vertical flows of material and symbolic

resources in the analysis of organizations and contexts.’’

Thornton and Ocasio (1999, p. 804): ‘‘We define institutional logics as the socially constructed,

historical pattern of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which

individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space,

and provide meaning to their social reality (Friedland & Alford, 1991, p. 243; Jackall, 1988,

p. 112).’’

Seo and Creed (2002, p. 228): ‘‘Friedland and Alford maintain that the major institutions of

contemporary Western society—a capitalist market, the nuclear family, the bureaucratic

state, liberal democracy, and Judeo-Christian religious traditions—have mutually

interdependent and yet contradictory ‘‘central logics—sets of material practices and symbolic

constructions—which constitute their organizing principles and which are available to

organizations and individuals to elaborate’’ (1991, p. 256).’’

Alexander (2004, p. 527): ‘‘From its very beginnings, the social study of culture has been

polarized between structuralist theories that treat meaning as a text and investigate the

patterning that provides relative autonomy and pragmatist theories that treat meaning as

emerging from the contingencies of individual and collective action—so-called practices—and

that analyze cultural patterns as reflections of power and material interest. In this article, I

present a theory of cultural pragmatics that transcends this division, bringing meaning

structures, contingency, power, and materiality together in a new way. My argument is that

the materiality of practices should be replaced by the more multidimensional concept of

performances.’’


that Friedland and Alford’s key insight that practices are anchoredmaterially has not been elaborated in the selected set of articles. Table 4contains examples of the co-occurrence of ‘‘culture’’ and ‘‘material.’’

We also extracted the co-occurrence of ‘‘material’’ and ‘‘structure,’’finding that these two words co-occurred in 20 paragraphs of the 2,623paragraphs in the 16 articles (1%). Most often structure is described as


distinct from materials and refers to patterned relationships – whether socialrelations, cognitive thoughts, or organizational roles and units. Forexample, Thornton and Ocasio (1999) refer to changes in role relationswhere investment bankers became important advisers to CEOs of publishingcompanies. Suddaby and Greenwood (2005, p. 60) describe a teleologicalapproach that ‘‘avows a means-end logic in which individuals and socialstructures move toward the maximization of materialist objectives.’’ Mohr(1998) highlights structure of culture rather than material properties. Scott(1987) points to the similarity in organizational structures of schools andconsensus across roles (principals, teachers, or superintendents) regardingcurricular material, grading, etc. DiMaggio (1997) refers to cognitive struc-tures, social structures, and material practices. An exception is Havemanand Rao (1997, p. 1621) who connect material to structures, pointing tomaterial as both structures and practices in thrifts:

the terminating plan was the material realization of a theory of thrift based on the pillars

of mutual cooperation and external control. This plan allowed for no role differentiation

between members—all members were both savers and borrowers; all members entered

the organization at its founding and left at its dissolution; there was no professional

managerial cadre, as ordinary members assumed responsibility for administrative tasks;

and all members took the same risks and received the same rewardsy

For many of these scholars, the materiality of structures is the pattern ofrelations among thoughts, actors, or organizations. As such, materialityseems to be used as a point of connection between (cognitive and social)structure and (patterns of) practice.

Vocabulary of Materials, Practices, and Structure with Exemplars

In this section, we focus on exemplars – concrete instantiations of materials,practices, and structures – that authors point to in their text in order tounderstand what they mean by institutional logic. We start with anexamination of the usage of practice in the text and find only a singledefinition of practice by Townley (2002, p. 167):

‘‘A practice requires a certain kind of relationship between those who participate in it

and those who have participated in it, with the recognition that individuals inherit a

particular space within an interlocking set of social relationships, and membership of a

social group that gives obligations and duties.’’

Thus, practices are the activities associated with specific roles andrelationships. In exemplars of practice, we see activities associated with


specific roles, even if practice is not defined by authors. For instance,Thornton and Ocasio (1999, p. 814) describe how the content of theindustry’s publication shifted to match the transformation of CEO’s practi-ces under, respectively, an editorial logic and a market logic:

‘‘Rather than the typical Publishers Weekly (PW) features about new books, authors,

and imprints, this newsletter focused on competitive position, ranking publishers by their

control of market share, and providing information on acquisition practices as a means

to increase market share.’’

Other activities listed as practices included CEOS implementing compensa-tion plans (Zajac & Westphal, 1995), managers crafting and performingevaluations based on business planning criteria (Oakes et al., 1998), orlawyers and accountants executing client services (Suddaby & Greenwood,2005). The materials are implied in these examples, such as the CEO readingthe PW newsletter; however, the material content under the CEO’s control –that of textbooks – is not examined. Thus, we have intimations butlittle analysis of how the objects and materials underpinned new practices.

A few scholars have focused their empirical research on specific materialpractices, though they did not associate these with material practices oflogics but rather mentioned them in passing or specifically related materialchanges to constructs such as identity or product design. For example, abusiness planning and market logic directed managers to ‘‘how they canmake their exhibits flashier, more interactive, and more accessible to groupswith younger demographics and more disposable income’’ (Oakes et al.,1998). A nouvelle cuisine logic highlighted the ingredients in dishes andrules for organizing and serving food, reflecting a new and distinct identity(Rao et al., 2003). Hargadon and Douglas (2001, p. 493) are the most explicitin examining how materials influence institutions, using a technologyperspective:

Embedded within every technological system is a set of technics—fundamental

physical materials, their properties, and the details of their use (Mumford, 1934). For

example, coal lies at the core of the system of gas lighting that Edison sought to

replace. When heated, coal gives off a flammable gas that burns relatively cleanly and

is easily transportable. By 1882, these materials and properties (and others) were

embedded in a complex system of gas production, distribution, and use. For Edison to

overthrow the existing system of gas lighting, he needed to do more than simply devise

a way to produce light that was cleaner, cheaper, and more transportable than gas. He

had to overcome the institutions—the existing understandings and patterns of

action—that had, over the fifty years of the gas industry’s existence, accreted around

these fundamental physical properties and now maintained the stability of the gas

system.


Our findings show that only a handful of seminal studies explicitlymentioned physical materials and even fewer actually analyzed materials.Yet, tangible objects and physical materials are central to institutionallogics. We concur with Friedland (2013) who argues that material practicesrevolve around objects, ‘‘which are the means by which practices areanchored, affected and oriented’’ (Friedland, 2013, p. 37); however, suchstudies are infrequent and much needed. A key challenge is to overcome theambiguity associated with the material dimensions of institutional logics,produced by scholars referring to material as cultural resources andsymbolic resources as well as objects with physical properties. An importantstep forward for scholars of institutional logics is to use language andreferents that do not conflate practices, structures, and physical objects. Weadvocate as a first step to examine in more detail how materials – objectsand their physical properties – anchor practices and carry ideationaldimensions of logics.

BRINGING MATERIAL BACK IN TO INSTITUTIONAL

LOGICS: A WAY FORWARD

The desire to eschew material or technological determinism is under-standable and important (Thornton et al., 2012, p. 5); yet, we must not shyaway from trying to specify how materials underpin practices, such as thescalpel a physician wields in surgery or the plane a pilot flies. Further,materials instantiate the ideas or symbolic forms, just as church spire (or itslack) instantiates the ideal relationship between God and humans (Jones &Massa, 2013). When materials change, role relations and practices maychange as well (Barley, 1986) and vice versa. By defining material as structureand practices, we may elide unintentionally the material bases not only ofinstitutional logics, but also of materials that can contribute importantly –yet in unrecognized ways – to processes of institutional innovation,institutionalization, and institutional change. For instance, the materiallyinduced dissonance between the Gothic architectural expression of theoriginal Unity Church based on Catholicism and the ideational mindscape ofa progressive Unitarian congregation was instrumental in provokinginstitutional change in church architecture when the congregation optedto construct a radically new kind of church, Unity Temple by Frank LloydWright, that instantiated not only its Christian ideas, but also became anexemplar of modern architecture worldwide (Jones & Massa, 2013).


With the aim of opening up this potentially important area of institutionalinquiry, we point to literatures that connect ideation and materiality andthat may provide a path for scholars of institutional logics to incorporateand examine the material within institutional logics. We posit that insightsfrom other disciplines, such as science and technology studies (STS) andmaterial culture from the disciplines of sociology and anthropology, mightprovide helpful theoretical starting points for exploring the material basis ofinstitutional logics.

Science and Technology Studies (STS)

Though some organization scholars propose a dialectic relationship betweentechnology and organizations (Orlikowski, 1992), we posit that scholarlywork from STS can offer multiple avenues for institutional logics researchto engage with objects and the material world. We concur with Pinch(2008) that the absence of materiality from institutionalism represents ashortcoming that should be addressed. Although some STS approacheshave been applied through various facets of the management literature(Czarniawska & Sevon, 1996; D’Adderio, 2011; Hernes, 2010; Lawrence &Suddaby, 2006), relatively little effort has been devoted to integratinginsights from STS into institutional theory. We point to three STS theoriesthat could provide particularly fruitful directions for future logics research:the social construction of technology (SCOT), actor-network theory (ANT),and textuality. For a more comprehensive discussion of the intellectualhistory of STS and for an overview of topics, we direct readers to theHandbook of Science and Technology Studies (Jasanoff, Markle, Petersen, &Pinch, 1995).

First, the SCOT literature provides a framework for thinking about howdifferent interests of social groups are reflected in, and contested through,material objects. Building upon the concept of ‘‘interpretative flexibility’’from the sociology of scientific knowledge (Collins, 1985), SCOT theoristsapproach technologies as if they ‘‘acquire meanings in the social world andthese meanings shape and constrain their development’’ (Pinch, 2008,p. 471). In their discussion of the technological development of the bicycle,Pinch and Bijker (1987) show how the design of the bicycle reflected theavailable materials in combination with the interests of various actorgroups. Ultimately, the use of air in tires provided a material reconciliationof the differing values of safety (a preference of many women) and speed(favored by many young men). Thus, as Pinch and Bijker (1987) highlight,


material objects are reflections of competing, and sometimes reconciled,values of different social groups.

Other SCOT literature explores how expectations of material function-ality are socially distributed among different groups. MacKenzie (1990), inhis study of nuclear missile guidance technology, found that those closestand farthest from the technology have the highest uncertainty about itsfunction, whereas those in the ‘‘middle’’ do not question their under-standing, resulting in low uncertainty. However, this relationship betweenmateriality and certainty of function inverses in moments of crisis. Thus, theSCOT literature offers a framework for studying how distinct social groupsmay have fundamentally different relations with the same material object aswell as how relations vary with contextual dynamics such as stability and/orcrisis. For scholarship on institutional logics, the SCOT literature may helpconnect materiality to social structure and practices as well as to institu-tionally determined interests within the ideational realm.

Second, ANT treats human and nonhuman actors, or actants, symme-trically in their role within a network toward some effect. This symmetrybetween material objects and individuals has resulted in new conceptions ofpower, where relationships between actants are examined without preferenceof human agency (Callon, 1986). Although the analytical possibility of thisabsolute symmetry has been questioned and explored (Ashmore, 1993),ultimately an ANT approach demonstrates that things, including peopleand material objects, are both constituted and shaped by their veryinvolvement with each other in a network (Lee & Brown, 1994). Onepotential research direction for scholars in institutional logics is to approachlogics as networks, looking for objects that act as immutable mobiles, whichare easy to transport yet maintain some fixity in their meaning (such asmaps, graphical depictions of data, and money) and reflect the infra-structure of their networks (Latour, 1987). Additionally, future logicsresearch might explore the implicit value systems that underlie how certainobjects function. For example, Latour (1992) questions the morality of adoor spring, which reflects some expectation of the speed at which peoplewalk through doors. Although the process of materialization as the objecti-fication of ideas has been explored in institutional theory by Czarniawskaand Joerges (1996), institutional logics theorists might extend these insightsinto the continuing effect of such objects on logics.

Finally, another stream of STS literature treats material objects as‘‘texts’’ with both writers and readers. Woolgar (1991) argues in his ethno-graphic study of a microcomputer manufacturing company that objects are‘‘written’’ in such a way, through technological design and advertising


materials, to configure users, or influence the way in which objects are‘‘read.’’ Material objects as texts, however, does not necessarily imply anasymmetrical relationship between writers and readers of materials; rather,the way that users engage with materials influences how writers configuresuch materials (Grint & Woolgar, 1997). Considering material objects asmetaphorical texts provides an approach for institutional logics researchersto incorporate both the creators and the users of material objects. It alsoallows researchers to assess how features of objects might afford certainresponses/uses while restricting others, extending the work of Alexander(2004). Further, this approach might also allow future logics research toexplore dynamics of relationships between producers and consumers ofmaterial objects.

Material Culture

Another discipline that has engaged with material objects is material culturewithin sociology and anthropology. Although anthropologists have typi-cally focused upon the realm of human cultures and social structures, manyhave engaged with the role that material objects play in creating, facilitating,and reflecting culture and cultural values. For the purposes of institutionallogics, we point specifically to theories of exchange and consumption asproviding potential avenues for future research.

First, studies on the role of material objects in both market and giftexchange have demonstrated the importance of materiality in social value.Malinowski’s (1920) study of the kula exchange among the TrobriandIslands demonstrates the central function that material exchange can play inperpetuating social structures, such as social value accumulation andrelationship maintenance. Building upon exchange theory in anthropology,future research on institutional logics might approach objects as socialbeings with shifting values and contexts (and sometimes inalienablequalities) (Appadurai, 1986) and explore how this may alter, stretch, oridentify the boundaries of institutional logics. Additionally, researcherscould also follow methodological calls in anthropology for ‘‘follow thething’’ studies, which involves tracing the movement of objects in society(Marcus, 1995). The social contexts under which material objects areexchanged could provide institutional logics scholars a way of approachingthe role of materials in creating and maintaining certain logics such as howconcrete was understood and used in France and the United States (Jones &Boxenbaum, 2012).


Second, the role of consumption provides perspective into the social valueand meaning of objects. Although some have suggested that consumption isa mode of communication (Douglas & Isherwood, 2003 [1979]), others claimthat objects provide insight into people’s lives (Miller, 2008). However, wemight also consider how physicality affects the consumption of ideas. Forexample, McDonnell’s (2010) study of the interpretation of AIDScampaigns in Ghana reveals obstructed physical displays, and even the‘‘decaying’’ of materials, which restricts the delivery and subsequentconsumption of AIDS knowledge. Therefore, from an institutional logicsperspective, both the consumption of material objects and the consumptionof information embedded in materiality provide an avenue to understandwhether and how logics change compete with one another or becomedurable through being embedded into practices and structures. As we havediscussed, the engagement of STS and material culture literatures withmaterial objects provides paths for scholars of institutional logics to engagewith materiality.

CONCLUSION

Although institutional logics are recognized as containing both ideationaland material components, extant research has been hesitant to addressmateriality. Our analysis of seminal works on institutional logics reflects thismarginal and infrequent reference to the material component of institutionallogics. When it is evoked, materiality tends to refer to patterns of practicesand social structure. Physical objects are only rarely addressed in empiricalresearch on institutional logics and often emitted from conceptualdefinitions of materiality. The invisibility of materiality, and particularlyof physical objects, presents a weakness of institutional logics research, onethat may impede theory development of the multidimensionality of logics.The absence of material objects in our conceptual formulations may impedeempirical investigations of how practices and structures become anchored inorganizations, which in turn may truncate our understanding of how logicsoperate across time, space, dimensions, and levels of analysis. Not onlyshould we include material objects more explicitly in institutional logicsresearch, we should also distinguish more clearly among different com-ponents of the ‘‘material dimension’’ of logics, notably between physical andcultural elements as well as between practices and objects.

In order to move forward the agenda on institutional logics research, wepropose to draw insights from other disciplines and theoretical perspectives


that attend to materiality. We discussed some interesting theoreticalperspectives within the disciplines of sociology and anthropology that mayprove fruitful in this regard. Within sociology, we highlighted three lines ofinquiry within STS, namely SCOT, ANT, and textuality. Within culturalstudies, we examined exchange and consumption perspectives. In proposingthe integration of insights from these adjacent lines of inquiry, we must becareful to attend to the assumptions of these perspectives. We need to applythem appropriately, extend, and alter the assumptions when necessary aswell as craft new theories of materiality, when necessary, to realize the roleof materials within institutional logics and how materials shape institutionalchange and stability. As the inclusion of individuals into institutional theoryformulations has demonstrated (e.g., in the literature on institutionalentrepreneurship), we may risk assigning more weight than is appropriate toan omitted element. Yet, material objects, when treated carefully andcontextually, can open up new insights and stimulate the use of newmethodologies, which may propel us forward toward a more comprehensiveand dynamic understanding of how institutional logics shape organizationallife in a multitude of implicit ways.

REFERENCES

Alexander, J. C. (2004). Cultural pragmatics: Social performance between ritual and strategy.

Sociological Theory, 22, 527–573.

Appadurai, A. (1986). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Ashmore, M. (1993). Behaviour modification of a catflap: A contribution to the sociology of

things. Kennis en Methode, 17, 214–229.

Barley, S. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT

scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 31, 78–108.

Brinol, P., Gasco, M., Petty, R. E., & Horcajo, J. (2013). Treating thoughts as material objects

can increase or decrease their impact on evaluation. Psychological Science, 24, 41–47

(Original work published November 26, 2012). doi: 10.1177/0956797612449176.

Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops

and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new

sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–223). London: Routledge.

Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order: Replication of induction in scientific practice.

London: Sage.

Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travels of ideas, 203–221.

Czarniawska, B., & Sevon, G. (Eds.). (1996). Translating organizational change. Berlin: Walter

de Gruyter.


Dacin, M. T., Ventresca, M., & Beal, B. D. (1999). The embeddedness of organizaitons:

Dialogue & directions. Journal of Management, 25, 317–356.

D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in

routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 197–230.

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

Douglas, M., & Isherwood, B. (2003 [1979]). The world of goods: Towards an anthropology of

consumption. London: Routledge.

Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: The

contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 55, 114–149.

Friedland, R. (2001). Religious nationalism and the problem of collective representation.

Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 125–152.

Friedland, R. (2013). God, love and other good reasons for practice: Thinking through

institutional logics. In M. Lounsbury & E. Boxenbaum (Eds.), Research in the sociology

of organizations (pp. 25–50). Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.

Friedland, R., & Alford, R. B. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices,

and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new

institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–266). Chicago, IL: Chicago University

Press.

Glynn, M. A. (2000). When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity

within a symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 11(3), 285–298.

Glynn, M. A., & Lounsbury, M. (2005). From the Critics’ corner: Logic blending, discursive

change and authenticity in a cultural production system. Journal of Management Studies,

42, 1031–1055.

Green, S., Jr. (2004). A rhetorical theory of diffusion. Academy of Management Review, 29,

653–669.

Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (1997). The machine at work. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hanneman, R. (2013) Introduction to social network analysis. Retrieved from http://faculty.

ucr.edu/Bhanneman/nettext/C10_Centrality.html. Accessed on February 10, 2013.

Hargadon, D. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the

design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 476–501.

Haveman, H. A., & Rao, H. (1997). Structuring a theory of moral sentiments; institutional and

organizational coevolution in the early thrift industry. American Journal of Sociology,

102, 1606–1651.

Hernes, T. (2010). Actor-network theory, callon’s scallops, and process-based organization

studies. In T. Hernes & S. Maitlis (Eds.), Process, sensemaking, and organizing. Oxford:

Oxford University Press. chapter 9.

Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Petersen, J., & Pinch, T. (1995).Handbook of science and technology

studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jones, C., & Boxenbaum, E. (2012). Let’s get concrete!: Revealing the symbolic, material and

aesthetic within architects’ professional logic. Paper presented at ABC Institutional

Logics Conference, June 16–18, Banff, Canada.

Jones, C., & Livne-Tarandach, R. (2008). Designing a frame: Rhetorical strategies of architects.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 1–25.

Jones, C., Maoret, M., Massa, F. G., & Svejenova, S. (2012). Rebels with a cause: Formation,

contestation, and expansion of the de novo category ‘‘modern architecture,’’ 1870–1975.

Organization Science, 23, 1523–1545.

http://faculty.ucr.edu/&sim;hanneman/nettext/C10_Centrality.html

http://faculty.ucr.edu/&sim;hanneman/nettext/C10_Centrality.html


Jones, C. & Massa, F. 2013. From novel practice to consecrated exemplar: Unity Temple as a

case of institutional evangelizing. Organization Studies, 34(8): forthcoming.

Krippendorf, K. (2004). Content analysis. London: Sage.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society.

Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artefacts. In

W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in

sociotechnical change (pp. 225–258). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg,

C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (2nd

ed., pp. 215–254). London: Sage.

Lee, N., & Brown, S. (1994). Otherness and the actor network: The undiscovered continent.

American Behavioral Scientist, 37(6), 772–790.

Loewenstein, J., Ocasio, W., & Jones, C. (2012). Vocabularies and vocabulary structure: A new

approach linking categories, practices, and institutions. Academy of Management Annals,

6(1), 41–86.

Lounsbury, M. (2001). Institutional sources of practice variation: Staffing college and university

recycling programs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 29–56.

Lounsbury, M. (2002). Institutional transformation and status mobility: The professionaliza-

tion of the field of finance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 255–266.

Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the

professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 289–307.

MacKenzie, D. (1990). Inventing accuracy: A historical sociology of nuclear missile guidance.

Cambridge: MIT Press.

Malinowski, B. (1920). Kula: The circulating exchange of valuables in the Archipelagoes of

eastern new guinea. Man, 20, 97–105.

Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited

ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117.

McDonnell, T. E. (2010). Cultural objects as objects: Materiality, urban space, and the

interpretation of AIDS campaigns in Accra, Ghana. American Journal of Sociology,

115(6), 1800–1852.

Miller, D. (2008). The comfort of things. Cambridge: Polity.

Mohr, J. W. (1998). Measuring meaning structures. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 345–370.

Mohr, J. W., & Duquenne, V. (1997). The duality of culture and practice: Poverty relief in

New York city, 1888–1917. Theory and Society, 26, 305–356.

Oakes, L. S., Townley, B., & Cooper, D. J. (1998). Business planning as pedagogy:

Language and control in a changing institutional field. Administrative Science Quarterly,

43, 257–292.

Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in

organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.

Pinch, T. (2008). Technology and institutions: Living in a material world. Theory and Society,

37(5), 461–483.

Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts or how the

sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In

W. Bijker, T. Hughes & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems

(pp. 17–50). Cambridge: MIT Press.


Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003). Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine

as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology, 108,

795–843.

Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics.

Organization Studies, 30, 629–653.

Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly,

32, 483–511.

Seo, M. G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional

change. Academy of Management Review, 27, 222–247.

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

Science Quarterly, 50, 35–67.

Thornton, P. H. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity

in institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 81–101.

Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of

power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing

industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 801–843.

Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver,

K. Sahlin & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism

(pp. 99–129). London: Sage.

Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective:

A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Townley, B. (2002). The role of competing rationalities in institutional change. Academy of

Management Journal, 45, 163–179.

Woolgar, S. (1991). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In J. Law (Ed.),

A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 58–100).

London: Routledge.

Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. (1995). Accounting for the explanations of CEO compensation:

Substance and symbolism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 283–308.


APPENDIX A: 16 ARTICLES WITH VOCABULARY OF

‘‘INSTITUTIONAL LOGIC�’’ AND ‘‘MATERIAL

�,’’

CITING FRIEDLAND AND ALFORD (1991) WITH 200

OR MORE GOOGLE SCHOLAR CITATIONS

Full references are available in reference section

Alexander (2004) Sociological Theory

Dacin, Ventresca, and Beal (1999) Journal of Management

DiMaggio (1997) Annual Review of Sociology

Green (2004) Academy of Management Review

Hargadon and Douglas (2001) Administrative Science Quarterly

Haveman and Rao (1997) American Journal of Sociology

Lounsbury (2001) Administrative Science Quarterly

Mohr (1998) Annual Review of Sociology

Oakes et al. (1998) Administrative Science Quarterly

Rao et al. (2003) American Journal of Sociology

Scott (1987) Administrative Science Quarterly

Seo and Creed (2002) Academy of Management Review

Suddaby and Greenwood (2005) Administrative Science Quarterly

Thornton and Ocasio (1999) American Journal of Sociology

Townley (2002) Academy of Management Journal

Zajac and Westphal (1995) Administrative Science Quarterly


APPENDIX B: KEY TERMS FOR COGNITIVE,

NORMATIVE, AND MATERIAL DIMENSIONS

OF INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS

Logic including logics (eliminated logical or referring to deductive analysis)

Cognitive:Belief (including beliefs, believes, believed, believing),Cognition (including cognitive, cognitively)Knowledge (including knowing)Meaning (including meanings, meaningful, meaningfully)Schema (including schemes and schemat� – all forms i.e., schemata,schematically)Script (including scripts, scripted)Symbol (including symbols, symbolic, symbolically, symbolism)

Normative:Culture (including cultures, cultural, culturally)Expectation (including expectations, expected, expect)Moral (including morals, morality)Normative (including norm, norms, normatively)Rule (including rules, ruled, rulelike, rule-like)Value (including values, valued, value-based, valuable)

Material:Asset (including assets)Artifact (including artifacts, also checked for artefact, but did not occur)Investment (including investment, invest, investing, invested)Material (including materials, materiality, materially, materialist)Practice (including practices, practiced, practicing)Resource (including resources)Structure (including structures, structured, structural, structurally,structuring)Technology (including technological, technologies)

THE IMMATERIALITY OF MATERIAL PRACTICES IN INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS

Documents

Transcript of THE IMMATERIALITY OF MATERIAL PRACTICES IN INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS