Social InnovationAn Exploration of the Literature

Prepared for the McGill-Dupont Social Innovation InitiativeW. O. Nilsson

McGill University2003

INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW

COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMSINSTITUTIONAL THEORY & SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONSOCIAL MOVEMENTS

ORGANIZATION THEORY AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTSOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIPINNOVATION

SOCIAL CAPITAL

ARTICLES BY DOMAIN

COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS

INSTITUTIONAL THEORY & SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONSOCIAL MOVEMENTSORGANIZATIONAL THEORY & ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTSOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIPINNOVATIONSOCIAL CAPITAL

ARTICLES BY AUTHOR

ARTICLES BY DOMAIN WITH ABSTRACTS & COMMENTS

COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMSINSTITUTIONAL THEORY & SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION

SOCIAL MOVEMENTSORGANIZATION THEORY & ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTSOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIPINNOVATIONSOCIAL CAPITAL

BOOK LIST BY DOMAIN

COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMSINSTITUTIONAL THEORY & SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONSOCIAL MOVEMENTSORGANIZATION THEORY & ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTSOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

INNOVATIONSOCIAL CAPITAL

BOOK LIST BY AUTHOR

?

3

56

·67889

10

10111214181920

23

36

36434860747984

95

95969697989898

99

Introduction &OverviewThere is no literature on social innovation - a fact that makes a literature review on thetopic an interesting quest. The term 'social innovation' is rarely used either in a scholarlyor in a commonplace way.

An all-dates term-search on 'social innovation' in scholarly journals on ProquestiABI (anindex that includes most major journals in sociology, political science-and organizationalscience among other domains) produces only 46 hits, most of which have nothing to dowith one another.

A similar search of abstracts in select domains in JSTOR, an archive that in edition toessential sociological journals includes history, literature, and philosophy and thatincludes issues that go back to the early 1900s in some cases, reveals only one article.

And even when the term 'social innovation' is used, it is used in a variety of dissimilarways. Here are some of the meanings of the term:

•

•

•

Social Entrepreneurship - Creating organizations and projects within the socialsector. See for example the Stanford Center for Social Innovation; _Social Responsibilities ofBusiness Organizations - Emphasis on corporatecitizenship, sustainability, ethical practices, business/community/governmentcollaboration. See for example the Aspen Institute for Social Innovation throughBusiness.Social Side ofTechnological Innovation - Social dynamics of innovation processwithin organizations (primarily businesses). Also may include the larger socialdynamics at work in framing and acceptinglrejecting new technologies.

None of these things, it turns out, is what the McGill Dupont Social Innovation Initiativehad in mind when it began a series of roundtable dialogues on the topic in the fall of2002. These "think tank" meetings began without a formal definition of socialinnovation, but in fairly short order a broad understanding of the way the group was usingthe term began to emerge. The group saw a social innovation as a significant, creative,and sustainable shift in the way that a given society dealt with a profound and previouslyintractable problem such as poverty, disease, violence, or environmental deterioration.The "significance" of the innovation might be in terms of scale (it affects a large numberof people), of scope (it improves society not just in terms of one factor, but in a deep andmultidimensional way), or resonance (it may be too early to determine scale or scope, butthe innovation is capturing people's imagination in a powerful way). In the literature ontechnological innovation, a distinction is sometimes made between an "invention" - thecreation of a new product or process - and an "innovation" - the widespread adoption ofthat new product or process. In this sense, invention is (or can be) individual, whereasinnovation is always social. With its focus on outcomes, the think tank group alsoemphasized this distinction. The group was not interested in new social ideas, per se, butin the way that those ideas achieved impact.

3

More importantly, the group developed its perspective based on a variety of emergentthemes. These themes further distinguished the group's understanding of socialinnovation from the sparse existing literature(s)on the topic. Here are some of the mostimportant themes around which the group organized its thinking:

• Complexity ~ the properties and patterns inherent in complex adaptive systems.• The connectionsbetween micro-level interactions and macro -level patterns of

institutional change.• The high degree to which both societal problems and their solutions are socially

constructed rather than technically, objectively given.• The assumption that social innovation is not the purview of a particular sector and

that to think exclusively along sectoral lines is misleading. Most of the literatureon social change tends to focus in one way or another on the not-for-profit sectoror on the government sector.

• The assumption that, though organizations often play an important role in socialchange, to focus exclusively On organizations would be as limiting and deceptiveas focusing on sectors.

• The belief that confronting paradox is not only inevitable but invaluable whenexploring social systems and social change.

• The understanding that perhaps the central paradox involved in social innovationis the relationship between intention and emergence. How do "leaders" involvethemselves in change in complex, unpredictable and ultimately un-"manageable"systems?

Certainly the themes in and of themselves are not original (though most are of fairlyrecent vintage). They each appear in many domains within the literatures of sociology,.ecology, and/or political science. However, I was able to find nothing that even begins tointegrate these themes in any kind of meaningful framework for understanding socialinnovation. In short, as I hurriedly and worriedly searched for the kind of literature thatwould provide a comprehensive theoretical grounding for the questions and perspectiveswith which the think tank group was wrestling, it became clear to me that no suchliterature existed. The group was indeed beginning to develop an original and powerfullyintegrated framework ofits own.

Where then does that leave us in terms of a "literature review." Well, a real review,perhaps, would be impossible. But it was possible to define a handful of key domains thatseemed to reliably produce provocative articles that offered insight into one or more ofthe think tank's major themes. After a good deal of exploration, I identified the sevendomains described below. A keyword search of major indexes revealed some useful,baseline articles.butbecausethere are no magical keywords that can unlock such a richcollection of ideas (since, apparently, "social innovation" doesn't do the trick), the mostuseful search technique proved to be a "manual" review of article abstracts in the leadingsociological and organizational journals. This review covered the five-year period from1998-1992 (though many of the classic or baseline articles are older).

4

The domains are not, to be sure, mutually exclusive. There is considerable overlap, andmany of the articles fit nicely into several domains. Nor do the articles I've chosenprovide a comprehensive look at the domains. (That would require a project ten times aslong as this one. A full review of all the domains would easily include several hundredarticles.) Rather, some of the articles are included merely because they are representativeof the domain. And some are included because they offer examples of the kinds ofperspectives within each domain that seem to resonate with the primary concerns of thesocial innovation think tank. The hope is that a researcher interested in a broadperspective on social innovation will find multiple useful starting points within thiscollection. Call it an impressionistic "literature-scape" rather than a literature map orreview. It is the first word, not the final word. And in that spirit, here are a few verygeneral comments.aboutthe relationship of each domain to the social innovation themesin question.

Complex Adaptive SystemsThe literature on complex adaptive systems is younger than that of the other domains.Most of the major ideas (at least in terms of complexity theory's applicability to socialsystems) have been developed in the last 15 years or so. Consequently the field is stillawash in multiple perspectives. Articles in this domain often have a distinct mixture ofdefinition, conceptualization, and example e.g., (Dent 1999). Muchof the earlysociological work in the field has been done from an organizational perspective (in whatsense do organizations operate as complex adaptive systems?) (Gersick 1991; Begun,Zimmerman et al. 2002) or from a very abstract, macro perspective using mathematicalmodeling. Recent trends with more applicability to social innovation attempt to linkmultiple levels of analysis (individual actors, organizations, institutions, social systems)from a complexity perspective (Boisot and Child 1999; Glouberman and Zimmerman2002). Some of the more interesting theoretical work is now being done around specificorganizational or system phenomena such as boundaries (Richardson and Lissack 2001)or organizational extinction (Marion and Bacon 2000).

The most groundbreaking work in terms of social innovation appears to be the work of C.S. Holling and his research associates. While their approach isrooted in ecology, theyhave worked to develop a robust set of ideas that can be extended to social systems. Theirframework includes significant attention to change and to the potential role ofleaders/managers within social systems. This work greatly influenced the think tankteam. For an overview, see (Holling 2001).

In general the literature on complex adaptive systems offers a variety of profoundconcepts at the macro level that might be useful to social innovators. It also offers anincreasing number of interesting.organizational perspectives. Linking multiple levels ofanalysis with the concept of agency or intention, however, (which is the central concernof social innovators) is still a young and developing approach that offers a great deal ofroom for future research.

5

Institutional Theory & Social ConstructionInstitutional theory is rooted in theories of social construction that attempt to link micro­patterns of individual interaction with the development of relatively stable macro-socialpatterns and structures. These macro forms may be cognitive, normative, or regulatory.They key is that though the macro patterns are created at the subjective, individual level,they achieve a kind of objective status and a certain degree of trans-generational stability.Most of what we think of as social problems can be seen as rooted in institutions of onesort or another. (See the book list for several foundational texts and overviews ofinstitutional theory and social construction e.g., (Berger and Luckmann 1967; Giddens1984; Powell and DiMaggio 1991; Gergen 1999; Scott 2001).

The relationship between institutional theory and social innovation is obvious: the micro­macro links; the heft and intractability of patterns that were, after all, produced byhumans; the ways in which taken-for-granted cognitive beliefs and frames revealthemselves in moral norms, in organizational forms and in regulatory structures. Most ofthe early work done in this area was entirely theoretical. Later empirical work was largelyquantitative and done at the field levelof analysis. While helpful for the social innovatorfrom a conceptual level, most institutional literature offers little in the way ofunderstanding how human intention can help to change existing institutions and engendernew ones. In the 90s, several key articles were published that discussed the ways inwhich organizations might manipulate institutions strategically, but these tended tooperate from a very linear framework in which the institutions were readily apparent tothe actors involved. Since the roots of institutional theory assume that most institutionsoperate at a cognitive level of which we are unaware, these strategic approaches wereonly "institutional" in a very limited way.

Recently, a handful of articles have begun to explore micro-macro institutional links froman empirical, qualitative perspective, e.g., (Lawrence, Hardy et al. 2002). This approachseems to leave room for a kind of non-linear, complex intentionality that is rooted incollaboration. This sort of institutional intentionality and its relationship to complexadaptive systems is currently a wide-open field of inquiry, the development of whichwould contribute significantly to our understanding of social innovation.

SocialMovementsThe literature on social movements is very developed and offers many parallels with thethink tank's work on social innovation. Social movements are by nature trans-sectoral,trans-organizational, and driven by explicit purpose and intention. The literature hasmuch to say about the ways in which amorphous collectives can achieve profound socialchange. There is much subtle and sophisticated theory about the kinds of politicalstructures and forces and organizational patterns that have allowed some movements tobe successful. However, social movements as conceptualized in the literature aregenerally assumed to have a clear understanding of the problem in question and anequally clear understanding of who is a friend and who is an enemy. This type of clarityleaves little room for the kinds of ill-understood and emergent patterns described bycomplexity theories and institutional theories. Little has been done to link socialmovement theory with these two schools of thought.

6

There is an emerging body of work that looks at social movements from an ecologicalperspective that may begin to open up some complexity themes (Zhao 1998). And asmall, but important sub-stream of the literature, in contrast to the dominant "strategic"approach, has been very concerned with frames and the development of collectiveidentity- an approach that offers some connection to cognitive institutional theory andsocialconstruction. See (Benford and Snow 2000; Edelman 2001) or (Zald 1996; Pollettaand Jasper 2001) for an overview.

Many articles also explore (if sometimes indirectly) the tension between place as anorganizing principle (people living with or near each other and sharing a culture) andideology as an organizing principle (people attracted to the same cause or idea). Whilesocial movements have often been seen as primarily ideological, there is a growingemphasis on place that social innovators would do well to heed. Another possibly usefulway to develop social innovation theory would be to link some of the more intimate,personal and intuitive change approaches described in the organizational developmentliterature (e.g., Appreciative Inquiry or Dialogue) with the social movement literature.

Organization Theory and Organizational DevelopmentIf social innovation is not primarily a matter of formal organizations, the organizationalliterature is still among the most fruitful domains for thinking about social change. Threemajor strands in the literature are helpful:

• The literature on the dynamics of inter-sectoral collaboration. Social problemsgenerally involve an array of organizational actors of various sectoral types. Asthe forces of globalization become stronger and more apparent, organizationscholars (and development scholars using an organizational lens) have begun toexplore the relationships between NGGs, community organizations, governmentalagencies, and private corporations with more subtlety. See e.g., (Bouwen andSteyaert 1999; Brinkerhoff 1999; Brown and Ashman 1999).

• The study of loose, informal, collaborative "organizations." New organizationalmodels and perspectives are emerging that incorporate dimensions andconnections quite different from traditional, formal authority and ownership ties.Much of this literature is rooted in network theory, but for our purposes the mostinteresting articles go beyond a merely formal evaluation of diffuse organizationalstructures to think about the possibilities these structures hold for values-drivensocial change. Many articles in the Cooperrider and Dutton edited volumeOrganizational Dimensions ofGlobal Change address this theme, oftenprofoundly. See e.g., (Tenkasi and Mohrman 1999; Westley 1999; Zald 1999) inthe the Cooperrider book or (Foreman 1999; Rohrschneider and Dalton 2002) forother examples.

• Intimate portraits of the ways in which people in organizations can begin toloosen the cognitive institutional shackles and formal organizational constraintswith which they are burdened and begin to work creatively with emergentproperties of complex systems. Many of these articles have to do with ways ofthinking (Appreciative Inquiry), ways of communicating (Dialogue), paradox,intuition, and improvisation. While generally focused on the micro level, lately

7

many of these articles are beginning to seek to connect these micro-dynamics withlarger organizational and social patterns. For a selection, see (Whyte 1994; Weick1998; Crossan, Lane et al. 1999; Isaacs 1999; Weick 1999; Lewis 2000).

SocialEntrepreneurshipSocial entrepreneurship, as the term is generally used, focuses on the creative solution tosocial problems via the creation of formal (generally nonprofit) organizational structures.Surprisingly, despite this straightforward approach, there does not appear to be a richliterature on the subject. Social entrepreneurship literature would be a natural place forthe social innovator (or researcher) to look for guidance, but the pickings are sparse.Much of the literature is concerned with rather pedestrian definitions ((Dees 1998; Mort,Weerawardena et al. 2003) or with exploring the application of traditional managementfunctions and techniques to the nonprofit sector. The literature is also replete withsketchy case studies that might be useful in terms of social innovation, but the reader willhave to do the rich, theoretical work for herself, since these articles tend to be short ontheoretical subtlety and depth (Pastakia 1998; Offenheiser, Holcombe et al. 1999;Thompson, A1vyet al. 2000). This domain is probably most useful for its attention to thehistory and roles of nonprofit organizations in various specific instances of social change.I found it surprisingly un-useful in terms of leadership and management themes. Thesetend to be much more developed in generic (or corporate) organizational literature.

InnovationThe literature that's explicitly about innovation is almost exclusively focused on thedevelopment ofcommercial products and the processes thatbring them to market. In thatsense, the questions it asks are much narrower than the ones asked by people interested insocial innovation. There is very little attention paid to the moral value of innovations.Institutions and policies are explored only insofar as they impact the development andmarketization of new technologies (e.g., a country's national innovation or R&Dpolicy). When non-technological innovations areexplored, they are usually viewed fromthe perspective of their relationship to technological innovations. For example,' it istypical in the literature to study the underlying social architecture that encourages orinhibits the development of new ideas and/or the acceptance of those ideas on a widescale.

That being said, there is a depth to this literature in the way that it explores collectivecreativity that is often missing in more social/values-based literatures. Innovationliterature has a lot to say about the way people work creatively together in teams (March1976; Brown and Duguid 1991), about the way organizational structures support orinhibit innovation, and about the relationships between organizational/social architectureand the ultimate survival of various ideas (Henderson and Clark 1990; Dougherty 1992;Leonard-Barton 1992; Christensen 1997; Hargadon and Douglas 2001). Innovationliterature has also begun to explore the relationship between tacit and explicit knowledge.and the way in which this relationship can produce new knowledge. Nonaka's work inparticular deals with this theme (Nonaka 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995), and it isquite profound both on its own terms and in its potential applicability to social innovation

8

themes. The challenge forthe social innovator or researcher is to develop links betweenthe process depth in the innovation literature and the complex moral and institutionalpatterns seemingly at the heart of meaningful social change.

Social CapitalThe literature on social capital explores the way in which patterns ofsocial relationships,traditions, cultures, etc. can be seen as resources (for community stability, for economicproduction, for the production of new ideas) (Coleman 1990; Schuller, Baron et al. 2000).Understanding social capital is obviously critical for understanding the way in whichcommunities produce new ideas and the ways in which those ideas take root.

Much of the social capital literature concerns itself with defining social capital and/orwith delineating the relationship between various types of social capital and larger macro­social phenomena (e.g., education or volunteering) (Buchman and Hannum 2001; Curtis,Baer et al. 2001). These sorts of articles make for an interesting backdrop to certain socialinnovation themes.

Strands ofthe literature that might have more direct applicability for social innovatorsinclude:

• Examinations of the relationship between local social capital and more global,issue-focused organizations (generally NGOs) during various types ofdevelopment projects (Brown and Ashman 1996; Evans 1996; Becker 2002).

• Explorations of the important but paradoxical role of place in an increasinglyinterconnected global society (similar to some of the themes raised in the socialmovement literature). These articles often deal with collective identity, as well.(Gieryn 2000; McPherson, Smith-Lovin et al. 2001; Gille and 0 Riain 2002).

• Discussions of issues related to volunteering and participation (Curtis, Baer et al.2001; Eckstein 2001; Schofer and Fourcade-Gourinchas2001). Helpful forpeople thinking about mobilization.

9

Articles By Domain

Complex Adaptive SystemsBegun, J. W.,B. Zimmerman, et al. (2002). "Health care

organizations as complex adaptive systems." Draft BookChapter 1S. M. Mick and M.Wvttenbach leds.J Advances inHealth Care Organization Theory (San Francisco: Jossev­Bass, forthcoming}].

Boisot, M. and J~ Child (1999). "Organizations as adaptive

systems in complex environments: The case of China~"Organization Science 10(3): 237.

Dent,E. B. (1999). "Complexity science: A worldview shift."Emergence 1(4): 5.

Gersick (1991). "Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel .exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm."

Academy of Management Review 16(1): 10-36.

Glouberman, S. and B. Zimmerman (2002). "Complicated andcomplex systems: What would successful reform ofMedicare look like." Discussion paper submitted to theCommission on the Future of Health Care in Canada.

Goldman, M. and R. Schurman (2000). "Closing the "great divide":New social theory on society and nature." Annual Review ofSociology 26: 563-584.

Holling, C. S. (2001). "Understanding the complexity of economic,ecological, and social systems:' Ecosystems 4(5): 390.

Levinthal, D. and M. Warglein (1999). "Landscape design:Designing for local action in complex worlds:' OrganizationScience 10(3): 342.

Marion, R. and J. Bacon (2000). "Organizational extinction andcomplex systems:' Emergence 1 (4): 71.

10

Milstein, B. (2002). "Syndemics Overview."

Richardson, K. A. and M. R. Lissack (2001). "On the status ofboundaries, both natural and organizational: A complexsystems perspective." Emergence 3(4): 32-49.

Sawyer, R. K. (2001). "Emergence in sociology: Contemporaryphilosophy of mind and some implications for sociologicaltheory:' American Journal of Sociology 107(3): 551-85.

Institutional Theory & Social ConstructionClemens, E. S. and J~ M. Cook (1999). "Politics and

institutionalism: Explaining durability and change:' AnnualReview of Sociology 25: 441-446.

Hardy,C. and N. Phillips (1999). "No joking matter: Discursivestruggle in the Canadian refugee system:' OrganizationStudies 20(1): 1.

Ingram, P. and K. Clay (2000). "The choice-within-constraintsnew institutionalism and implications for sociology:' AnnualReview of Sociology 26: 525-546.

Lamont, M. and V. Molnar (2002). "The Study of Boundaries in theSocial Sciences:' Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167-195.

Lawrence, T. B., C. Hardy, et al. (2002). "Institutional effects ofinterorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto­institutions." Academy of Management Journal 45(1): 281­290.

Mintzberg, H. and F. Westley (2000). "Sustaining the institutionalenvironment:' Organization Studies 21: 71.

Perez-Aleman, P. (2000). "Learning, adjustment and economicdevelopment: Transforming firms, the state andassociations in Chile:' World Development 28(1): 41.

11

Stolte, .... F., G. A. Fine, et al. (2001). "Socialminiaturism: Seeingthe big through the small in social psychology:" AnnualReview of Sociology 27: 387-413.

Strang, D. andM. W. Macy (20.01). "In search of excellence: Fads,

success stories, and adaptive emulation:' American "'ournalof Sociology 107(1): 147-82.

Social MovementsBaiocchi, G. (2003). ""Emergent public spheres: Talking politics in

participatory government." American Sociological Review68(1): 52.

Benford, R. and D. Snow (2000). "Framing processes and socialmovements: An overview and assessment:" Annual Reviewof Sociology 26: 611-639•.

Chwe, M. S.-Y. (1999). "Structure and strategy in collectiveaction:" American "'ournal of Sociology 105(1): 128-56.

Edelman,M. (2001). "Social movement: Changing paradigms andforms of politics." Annual Review of Anthropology 30: 285­317.

Giugni, M. (1998). ""Was it worth the effort: The outcomes and

consequences of social movements." Annual Review ofSociology 24: 371-393.

Hedstrom, P., R. Sandell, et al. (2000). "Mesoloevel networks andthe diffusion of social movements: The case of the SwedishSocial Democratic Party." American Journal of Sociology106(1): 145-72.

Ingram, P. and T. Simons (2000). "State formation, ideologicalcompetition, and the ecology of Israeli workerscooperatives, 1920-1992." Administrative Science Quarterly45(1): 25.

12

Kollock, P. (1998). "Social dilemmas: The anatomy of

cooperation." Annual Review of Sociology 24: 183-214.

Kriesi, H. (1996). Organizational structure of new socialmovements in a political context. Comparativeperspectives on social movements. D. MacAdam,J. D.

McCarthy and M. N.Zald. Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress: 261-274.

Loveman, M. (1998). "High-risk collective action: Defendinghuman rights in Chile, Uruguay, and A-rgentina:" American

Journal of Sociology 104(2): 477-525.

McCarthy, J. D. (1996). Constraints and opportunities in adop~ing,

adapting, and inventing. Comparative perspectives onsocial movements. D. MacAdam, J. D. McCarthy and M. N.Zald. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 141-151.

Oliver, P. and D. Myers (1999). "How events enter the public

sphere: Conflict, location, and sponsorship in localnewspaper coverage of public events:" American Journal of

Sociology 105(1): 38-87.

Polletta, F. and J. M. Jasper (2001). "Collective identity andsocial movements." Annual Review of Sociology 27: 283­

305.

Sandell, R. (2001). "Organizational growth and ecologicalconstraints: The growth of social movements in Sweden,1881 to 1940:" American Sociological Review 66(5): 672.

Staggenborg, S. (1998). "Social movement communities andcycles of protest: The emergence and maintenance of alocal women"s movement:" Social Problems 45(2): 180(25).

Stevenson, W. B. and D. Greenberg (2000). "Agency and socialnetworks: Strategies of action in a social structure ofposition,opposition, and opportunity:" Administrative

Science Quarterly 45(4): 651.

13

Strang, D. and S.Soule(1998). "Diffusion in organizations andsocial movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills." Annual

Review of Sociology 24: 265-290.

Useem, B. (1998). "Breakdown theories of collective action."Annual Review of Sociology 24: 215-238.

Young, M. P. (2002). "Confessional protest: The religious birth ofthe U.S. national social movements." American SociologicalReview 67(5): 660.

Zald, M. N. (1996). Culture, ideology, and strategic framing.Comparative perspectives on social movements. D.MacAdam, J. D. McCarthy and M. N. Zald. Cambridge,Cambridge University Press: 261-274.

Zhao (1998). "Ecologies of social movements: Studentmobilization during the 1989 prodemocracy movement in

Beijing." American Journal of Sociology 103(6): 1493-1529.

Organizational Theory & Organizational DevelopmentAram, J. D. (1999). Constructing and deconstructing global

change organizations. Organizational dimensions of globalchange: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J.E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 235­251.

Bouwen, R. and C. Steyaert (1999). From a dominant voicetoward multivoiced cooperation: Mediating metaphors forglobal change. Organizational dimensions of global change:no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J. E. Dutton.Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 291-319.

Brinkerhoff, D. W. (1999). "Exploring g state-civil societycollaboration: Policy partnerships in developing countries."Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28(4): 59.

14

Brown, L. D. and D. Ashman (1999). Social capital, mutual

influence, and social learning in intersectoral problemsolving in Africa and Asia. Organizational dimensions of

global change: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperriderand J. E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications:1-36.

Cooperrider, D. L. and J. E. Dutton (1999). No limits to- -

cooperation: An introduction to the organizationaldimensions of global change. Organizational dimensions ofglobal change: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider

and J. E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, CaUf., Sage Publications:1-36.

Crossan, M. M., H. W. Lane, et al. (1999). "An organizationallearning framework: From intuition to institution." Academyof Management Review 24(3): 522.

Drazin, R.and L. Sandelands(1992). "Autogenesis: A perspective

on the process of organizing:i Organization Science 3(2):230.

Fisher, J. (1999). International networking: The role of southernNGOs. Organizational dimensions of global change: nolimits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J. E. Dutton.

Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 210-234.

Foreman, K. (1999). "Evolving global structures and thechallenges facing international relief and developmentorganizations:' Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly28(4): 178.

Frooman, J. (1999). "Stakeholder influence strategies:' Academy

of Management Review 24(2): 191.

Gergen, K. J. (1999). Global organization and the potential forethical inspiration. Organizational dimensions of globalchange: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J.E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 255-

15

269.

Gray, B. (1999). The development of global environmental

regimes: Organizing in the absence of authority.Organizational dimensions of global change: no limits tocooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J. E. Dutton. ThousandOaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 185-209.

Hage, J. T. (1999). "Organizational innovation and organizationalchange." Annual Review of Sociology 25: .597-622.

Hardy, C. and N. Phillips (1998). "Strategies of engagement:Lessons from the critical examination of collaboration andconflict in interorganizational domain." OrganizationScience 9(2): 217-230.

Hart, S. (1999). Corporations as agents of global sustainability:Beyond competitive strategy. Organizational dimensions ofglobal change: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider

and J.E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications:346~361.

Kaczmarski, K. M. and D. L. Cooperrider (1999). Constructionistleadership in the global relational age: The case of themountain forum. Organizational dimensions of globalchange: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J.E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 57-87.

Knowles, R. N. (2001). "Self-organizing leadership: A way ofseeing what is happening in organizations and a pathway tocoherence." Emergence 3(4): 112-127.

Lewis, M. W. (2000). "Exploring paradox: Toward a morecomprehensive guide:'Academy of Management Review25(4): 760.

Mir, R. A., M. B. Calas, et al. (1999). Global technoscapes andsilent voices: Challenges to theorizing global cooperation.Organizational dimensions of global change: no limits to

16

cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J. E. Dutton. ThousandOaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 270-290.

Rohrschneider, R. and R. Dalton (2002). "A global network?Transnational cooperation among environmental groups."Journal of Politics 64(2): 510-533.

Rubenstein, D. and R. W. Woodman (1984). "Spiderman and theBurma- Raiders: Collateral organization theory in action."

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 20(1): 1.

Swanson, D. L. (1999). "Toward an integrative theory of businessand society: A research strategy for corporate socialperformance." Academy of Management Review 24(3): 506.

Tenkasi, R. V. and S. A. Mohrman (1999). Global change ascontextual collaborative knowledge creation.Organizational dimensions of global change: no limits tocooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J. E. Dutton. ThousandOaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 114-136.

Vaughan, D. (1999)."The dark side of organizations: Mistake,misconduct, and dlsaster,' Annual Review of Sociology 25:

271-305.

Weick, K. E. (1998). "Improvisation as a mindset fororganizational analysis." Organization Science 9(5): 543.

Weick, K. E. (1999).Sensemaking as an organizational dimensionof global change. Organizational dimensions of globalchange: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J.E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 39-56.

Weick, K.E. and F. Westley (1996). Organizational learning:Affirming an oxymoron. Handbook of organization studies.S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy andW. Nord, Sage: 440-458.

Westley, F. (1999). "Not on our watch": The biodiversity crisis andglobal collaboration response. Organizational dimensions of

17

global change: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperriderand J. E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications:

88-113.

Westley, F. and H. Vredenburg (1997). "Interorganizationalcollaboration and the preservation of global biodiversity:'Organization Science 8(4): 381-403.

Zald, M. N. (1999). Transnational and international socialmovements in a globalizing world: Creating culture,creating conflict. Organizational dimensions of globalchange: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J.E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., S~ge Publications: 168­

184.

Social EntrepreneurshipBryer, D. and J. Magrath (1999). "New dimen~ionsof global

advocacy:' Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28(4):168.

Dees, J. G. (1998). "The meaning of "social entrepreneurship":'

Dichter, T. W. (1999). "Globalization and its effects on NGOs:Efflorescence.or a blurring of roles and relevance?"Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28(4): 38.

Egri, C. P. and S. Herman (1999). "Leadership in the NorthAmerican environmental sector: Values, leadership styles,and contexts of environmental leaders and theirorganizations:' Academy of Management Journal 43(4):571.

Lindenberg,M. (1999). "Declining state capacity, voluntarism,and the globalization of the not-for-profit sector:' Nonprofitand Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28(4): 147.

Mort, G. S., J. Weerawardena, et al. (2003). "Social

18

entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualization:"International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary SectorMarketing 8(1): 76.

Offenheiser, R., S. Holcombe, et al, (1999). "Grappling withglobalization, partnership, and learning: A look inside.Oxfam America:" Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly28(4): 121.

Pastakia, A. (1998). ""Grassroots ecopreneurs: Change agents fora sustainable society:" Journal of Organizational Change

Management 11 (2): 157.

Sagawa, S. and E. Segal (2000). "Common interest, commongood: Creating value through business and social sectorpartnerships." California Management Review 42(2): 105­122.

Thompson, J., G. Alvy,et al. (2000). "Social entrepreneurship - a

new look at the people and the potential:" ManagementDecision 38(5): 328-338.

Waddock, S. A. and J. E. Post (1991). "Social entrepreneurs andcatalytic change:" Public Administration Review 51 (5): 393.

InnovationBrown, J. S. and P. Duguid (1991). ""Organizational learning and

communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working,learning and innovation:" Organization Science 1 (4): 40-57.

Dougherty, D. (1992). "Interpretive barriers to successful productinnovation in large firms:" Organization Science 3(2): 179­

202.

Hargadon, A. B. and Y. Douglas (2001). "When innovations meetinstitutions: Edison and the design of the electric light:"

Administrative Science Quarterly 46(3): 476.

19

Henderson, R. M. and K. B. Clark (1990). "Architecturalinnovation: The reconfiguration of existing producttechnologies and the failure of established firms:'

Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 9-30.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). "Core capabilities and core rigidities:A paradox· in managing new product development."Strategic Management Journal 13(Special Issue): 111-126.

March, J. G. (1976). Technology of foolishness. Ambiguity andchoice in organizations. J. G. March and J. P. Olsen.Cambridge, Harvard University Press: 443-451.

Nonaka, I. D. (1994). "A dynamic theory of organizationalknowledge creation." Organization Science 5(1): 14.

Van den Bulte, C. and G.L. Lilien (2001). "Medical innovationrevisited: Social contagion versus marketing effort:'American Journal of Sociology 106(5): 1409-35.

Wejnert, B. (2002). "Integrating models of diffusion ofinnovations: A conceptual framework." Annual Review ofSociology 28: 297-326.

Social CapitalBecker, C. D. (2002). "Grassroots to grassroots: Why forest

preservation was rapid at Loma Alta, Ecuador." WorldDevelopment 31 (1): 163-176.

Brown, L. D. and D. Ashman (1996). "Participation, social capital,and intersectoral problem solving: African and Asiancases:' World Development 24(9): 1467-1479.

Buchman, C. and E. Hannum (2001). "Education and stratification

in developing countries: A review of theories and research."Annual Review of Sociology 27: 77-102.

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Social Capital. Foundations of Social

20

Theory, Belknap Press: 300-321.

Curtis, J. E., D. E. Baer, et al. (2001). "Nations of joiners:

Explaining voluntary association membership in democraticsocieties." American Sociological Review 66(6): 783.

Eckstein, S. (2001). "Community as gift-giving:. Collectivist rootsof volunteerlsm," American Sociological Review 66(6): 829.

Evans, P. (1996). "Government action, social capital anddevelopment: Reviewing the evidence on synergy:' WorldDevelopment 24(6): 1119-1132.

Gieryn, T. F. (2000). "A space for place in sociology:' AnnilalReview of Sociology 26:·463-496.

Gille, Z. and S. 0 Riain (2002). "Global Ethnography:' Annual

Review of Sociology 28: 271-295.

McElroy, M. W. (2002). "Social innovation capital:' Journal ofIntellectual Capital 3(1): 30-39.

McPherson, M., L. Smith-Lovin, et al. (2001). "Birds of a feather:Homophily in social networks." Annual Review of Sociology27: 415-444.

Portes, A. (1998). "Social capital: Its origins and applications inmodern sociology:' Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1-24.

Sampson, R. J., J. D. Morenorr, et al. (2002). "Assessing"neighborhood effects": Social processes and newdirections in research:' Annual Review of Sociology 28:443-478.

Schofer, E. and M. Fourcade-Gourinchas (2001). "The structuralcontexts of civic engagement: Voluntary association

membership in comparative perspective." AmericanSociological Review 66(6): 806.

Schuller, T., S. Baron, et al.(2000). Social capital: A review and

21

critique. Social capital: Critical perspectives. T • Schuller, S.Baron and J. Field. New York, Oxford University Press: 1-3B.

Small, M.L. (2002). "Culture, cohorts, and organization theory:Understanding local participation in a Latino housingproject:' American Journal ofSociology 108(1}: 1·54.

Small, M. L. and K. Newman (2001). "Urban poverty after TheTruly Disadvantaged: The rediscovery of the family, theneighborhood, and culture."Annual Review of Sociology 27:33-45.

Tolbert, C. M., T. A. Lyson, et al. (199B). "Local capitalism, civicengagement, and socioeconomic well-being." Social Forces77(2}: 401·427.

Wilson, J. (2000). "Volunteering:' Annual Review of Sociology 26:215-240~

22

Articles By AuthorAram, J. D. (1999). Constructing and deconstructing global

change organizations. Organizational dimensions of globalchange: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J.E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 235­251.

Baiocchi, G. (2003). "Emergent public spheres: Talking politics in

participatory government." American Sociological Review68(1): 52.

Becker, C. ~. (2002). "Grassroots to grassroots: Why forestpreservation was rapid at Loma Alta, Ecuador:' World

Development 31 (1): 163-176.

Begun, J. W., B. Zimmerman, et al. (2002). "Health care

organizations as complex adaptive systems:' Draft BookChapter CS. M. Mick and M. Wvttenbach (eds.) Advances inHealth Care Organization.Theory (San Francisco: Jossev­Bass, forthcomingU.

Benford, R. and D. Snow (2000). "Framing processes and social

movements: An overview and assessment."Annual Reviewof Sociology 26: 611-639.

Boisot, M. and J. Child (1999). "Organizations as adaptive

systems in complex environments: The case of China:'Organization Science 10(3): 237.

Bouwen, R. and C. Steyaert (1999). From a dominant voicetoward multivoiced cooperation: Mediating metaphors forglobal change. Organizational dimensions of global change:

no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J. E. Dutton.

Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 291-319.

Brinkerhoff, D. W. (1999). "Exploring g state-civil societycollaboration: Policy partnerships in developing countries:'Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28(4): 59.

23

Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid (1991). "Organizational learning andcommunities of practice: Toward a unified view of working,learning and innovation:' Organization Science 1 (4): 40-57.

Brown, L. D. and D. Ashman (1996). "Participation, social capital,and intersectoral problem solving: African and Asiancases." World Development 24(9): 1467-1479.

Brown, L. D. and D. Ashman (1999). Social capital, mutualinfluence, and social learning in intersectoral problemsolving in Afric_a and Asia. Organizational dimensions ofglobal change: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperriderand J. E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage .Publications:1-36.

Bryer, D. and J. Magrath (1999). "New dimensions of globaladvocacy." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28(4):168.

Buchman, C. and E. Hannum (2001). "Education and stratificationin developing countries: A review of theories and research."Annual Review of Sociology 27: 77-102.

Chwe, M. S.-Y. (1999). "Structure and strategy in collectiveaction." American Journal of Sociology 105(1): 128-56.

Clemens, E. S. and J. M. Cook (1999). "Politics andinstitutionalism: Explaining durability and change... ·AnnualReview of Sociology 25: 441-446.

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Social Capital. Foundations of SocialTheory, Belknap Press: 300-321.

Cooperrider, D. L. and J. E. Dutton (1999). No limits tocooperation: An introduction to the organizationaldimensions of global change. Organizational dimensions of

. global change: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperriderand J. E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications:

24

1-36.

Crossan, M. M., H. W. Lane, et al, (1999). "An organizational

learning framework: From intuition to institution:' Academyof Management Review 24(3): 522.

Curtis, J. E., D.E. Baer, etal. (2001). "Nations of joiners:Explaining voluntary association membership in democraticsocieties:' American Sociological Review 66(6): 783.

Dees, J. G. (1998). "The meaning of "social entrepreneurship":'

-

Dent, E. B. (1999). "Complexity science: A worldview shift."Emergence 1(4): 5.

Dichter, T. W. (1999). "Globalization and its effects on NGOs:Efflorescence or a blurring of roles and relevance?"

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28(4): 38.

Dougherty, D. (1992). "Interpretive barriers to successful productinnovation in large firms:' Organization Science 3(2):179­202.

Drazin, R. and L. Sandelands (1992). "Autogenesis: A perspectiveon the process of organizing:' Organization Science 3(2):

230.

Eckstein, S. (2001). "Community as gift-giving: Collectivist rootsof volunteerism." American Sociological Review 66(6): 829.

Edelman, M. (2001). "Social movement: Changing paradigms andforms of politics:' Annual Review of Anthropology 30: 285­317.

Egri, C. P. and S. Herman (1999). "Leadership in the NorthAmerican environmental sector: Values, leadership styles,and contexts of environmental leaders and theirorganizations:' Academy of Management Journal 43(4):

571.

25

Evans, P. (1996). "Government action, social capital anddevelopment: Reviewing the evidence on synergy." WorldDevelopment 24(6): 1119-1132.

Fisher,J. (1999). International networking: The role of southernNGOs. Organizational dimensions of global change: nolimits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J. E. Dutton.Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 210-234.

Foreman, K. (1999). "Evolving global structures and thechallenges facing international relief and developmentorganizations." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly28(4): 178.

Frooman, J. (1999). "Stakeholder influence strategies." Academyof Management Review 24(2): 191.

Gergen, K. J. (1999). Global organization and the potential forethical inspiration. Organizational dimensions of global

change: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J.E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 255­269.

Gersick (1991). "Revolutionary change theories: A multilevelexploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm:'Academy of Management Review 16(1): 10-36.

Gieryn, T. F. (2000). "A space for place in sociology." AnnualReview of Sociology 26: 463-496.

Gille, Z. and S. 0 Riain (2002). "Global Ethnography:' AnnualReview of Sociology 28: 271-295.

Giugni, M. (1998). "Was it worth the effort: The outcomes andconsequences of social movements." Annual Review ofSociology 24: 371-393.

Glouberman, S. and B. Zimmerman (2002). "Complicated andcomplex systems: What would successful reform of

26

Medicare look like." Discussion paper submitted to the

Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada.

Goldman, M. and R. Schurman (2000). "Closing the "great divide":New social theory on society and nature:" Annual Review ofSociology 26: 563-584.

Gray, B. (1999). The development of global environmental- regimes: Organizing in the absence of authority.

Organizational dimensions of global change: no limits tocooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J. E. Dutton. Thousand

Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 185-209.

Hage, J. T. (1999). ""Organizational innovation and organizationalchange." Annual Review of Sociology 25: 597-622.

Hardy, C. andN. Phillips (1998). "Strategies of engagement:

Lessons from the critical examination of collaboration andconflict in interorganizational domain:" Organization

Science 9(2): 217-230.

Hardy, C. and N. Phillips (1999). "No joking matter: Discursivestruggle in the Canadian refugee system." OrganizationStudies 20(1): 1.

Hargadon, A. B. and Y. Douglas (2001). "When innovations meetinstitutions: Edison and the design of the electric light:"Administrative Science Quarterly 46(3): 476.

Hart, S. (1999). Corporations as agents of global sustainability:Beyond competitive strategy. Organizational dimensions ofglobal change: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperriderand J. E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications:

346-361.

Hedstrom, P., R. Sandell, et al. (2000). "Mesoloevel networks andthe diffusion of social movements: The case of the Swedish

Social Democratic Party." American Journal of Sociology

106(1): 145·72.

27

Henderson, R. M. and K. B. Clark (1990). "Architecturalinnovation: The reconfiguration of existing product

technologies and the failure of established firms."Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 9-30.

Holling, C.S. (2001). "Understanding the complexity of economic,ecological, and social systems'" Ecosystems 4(5): 390.

Ingram, P. and K. Clay (2000). "The choice-within-constraintsnew institutionalism and implications for sociology'" AnnualReview of Sociology 26: 525-546.

Ingram, P. and T. Simons (2000). "State formation, ideologicalcompetition, and the ecology of Israeli workerscooperatives, 1920-1992." Administrative Science Quarterly45(1): 25.

Kaczmarski, K. M. and D. L. Cooperrider (1999). Constructionist

leadership in the global relational age: The case of themountain forum. Organizational dimensions of globalchange: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J.E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 57-87.

Knowles, R. N. (2001). "Self-organizing leadership: A way ofseeing what is happening in organizations and a pathway tocoherence." Emergence 3(4): 112-127.

Kollock, P. (1998). "Social dilemmas: The anatomy ofcooperation." Annual Review of Sociology 24: 183-214.

Kriesi, H. (1996). Organizational structure of new socialmovements in a political context. Comparativeperspectives on social movements. D. MacAdam, J. D.McCarthy and M. N. Zald. Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress: 261-274.

Lamont, M. and V. Molnar (2002). "The Study of Boundaries in theSocial Sciences." Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167-195.

28

Lawrence, T. B., C. Hardy, et al. (2002). "Institutional effects ofinterorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto­institutions:' Academy of Management Journal 45(1): 281­290.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). "Core capabilities and core rigidities:A paradox in managing new product development:'Strategic Management Journal 13(Special Issue): 111-126.

Levinthal,D. and M, Warglein (1999). "Landscape design:Designing for local action in complex worlds:' OrganizationScience 10(3): 342.

Lewis, M. W. (2000). "Exploring paradox: Toward a morecomprehensive guide:' Academy of Management Review

25(4): 760.

Lindenberg, M. (1999). "Declining state capacity, voluntarism,and the globalization of the not-for-profit sector." Nonprofit

and VoluntarvSector Quarterly 28(4): 147.

Loveman, M. (1998). "High-risk collective action: Defendinghuman rights in Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina:' AmericanJournal of Sociology 104(2): 477-525.

March, J. G. (1976). Technology of foolishness. Ambiguity andchoice in organizations. J. G. March and J. P. Olsen.Cambridge, Harvard University Press: 443-451.

Marion, R. and J. Bacon (2000). "Organizational extinction andcomplex systems:' Emergence 1 (4): 71.

McCarthy, J. D. (1996). Constraints and opportunities in adopting,

adapting, and inventing. Comparative perspectives onsocial movements. D.MacAdam, J. D. McCarthy and M. N.Zald. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 141-151.

McElroy, M. W. (2002). "Social innovation capital:' Journal ofIntellectual Capital 3(1): 30-39.

29

McPherson, M., L. Smith-Lovin, et al, (2001). "Birds of a feather:Homophily in social networks:" Annual Review of Sociology27: 415-444.

Milstein, B. (2002). IISyndemicsOverview:"

Mintzberg, H. and F. Westley (2000). IISustaining the institutionalenvironment:" Organization Studies 21: 71.

Mir, R. A., M. B. Calas, et al. (1999). Global technoscapes andsilent voices: Challenges to theorizing global cooperation.Organizational dimensions of global change: no limits tocooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J. E. Dutton. ThousandOaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 270-290.

Mort, G. S., J. Weerawardena, et al, (2003). "Socialentrepreneurship: Towards conceptualization:"International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary SectorMarketing 8(1): 76.

Nonaka, I. D. (1994). IIA dynamic theory of organizationalknowledge creation," Organization Science 5(1): 14.

Offenheiser, R., S. Holcombe, et al. (1999). "Grappling withglobalization, partnership, and learning: A look insideOxfam America:" Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly28(4): 121.

Oliver, P. and D. Myers (1999). IIHow events enter the publicsphere: Conflict, location, and sponsorship in localnewspaper coverage of public events:" American Journal ofSociology 105(1): 38-87.

Pastakia, A. (1998). "Grassrootsecopreneurs: Change agents fora sustainable society:" Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement 11 (2): 157.

Perez-Aleman, P. (2000). IILeaming, adjustment and economicdevelopment: Transforming firms, the state and

30

associations in Chile." World Development 28(1}: 41.

Polletta, F. and J. M. Jasper (2001). "Collective identity and

social movements:" Annual Review of Sociology 27: 283­305.

Portes, A. (1998). "Social capital: Its origins and applications inmodern sociology"" Annual Review of Sociology 24:1-24.

Richardson, K. A.and M. R. Lissack (2001). "On the status ofboundaries, both natural and organizational: A complexsystems perspective," Emergence 3(4}: 32-49.

Rohrschneider, R. and R. Dalton (2002). "A global network?Transnational cooperation among environmental groups."Journal of Politics 64(2}: 510-533.

Rubenstein, D. and R. W.Woodman (1984). "Spiderman and theBurma Raiders: Collateral organization theory in actton,"

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 20(1}: 1.

Sagawa, S. and E. Segal (2000). "Common interest, commongood: Creating value through business and social sectorpartnerships." California Management Review 42(2}: 105­122.

Sampson, R. J., J.D. Morenorr, etal. (2002). ""Assessing"neighborhood effects": Social processes and newdirections in research." Annual Review of Sociology 28:443-478.

Sandell, R. (2001). "Organizational growth and ecologicalconstraints: The growth of social movements in Sweden,

1881 to 1940.." American Sociological Review 66(5}: 672.

Sawyer, R. K. (2001). "Emergence in sociology: Contemporaryphilosophy of mind and some implications for sociologicaltheory," American Journal of Sociology 1 07(3}: 551-85.

Schofer, E. and M. Fourcade-Gourinchas (2001). "The structural

31

contexts of civic engagement: Voluntary associationmembership in comparative perspective." AmericanSociological Review 66(6): 806.

Schuller, T., S. Baron, et al, (2000). Social capital: A review and

critique. Social capital: Critical perspectives. T. Schuller, S.Baron and J. Field. New York, Oxford University Press: 1-38.

-Small, M. L. (2002). "Culture, cohorts, and organization theory:Understanding local participation in a Latino housingproject." American Journal of Sociology 108(1): 1-54.

Small, M. L. and K. Newman (2001). "Urban poverty after TheTruly Disadvantaged: The rediscovery of the family, theneighborhood, and culture:" Annual Review of Sociology 27:33-45.

Staggenborg, S. (1998). "Social movement communities andcycles of protest: The emergence and maintenance of a

local·women"s movement." Social Problems 45(2): 180(25).

Stevenson, W. B. and D. Greenberg (2000). "Agency and socialnetworks: Strategies of action in a social structure ofposition, opposition, and opportunity:" AdministrativeScience Quarterly 45(4): 651.

Stolte, J. F., G. A. Fine, et al.(2001). ""Social miniaturism: Seeingthe big through the small in social psychology." AnnualReview of Sociology 27: 387-413.

Strang, D. and M. W. Macy (2001). "In search of excellence: Fads,

success stories, and adaptive emulatlon," American Journalof Sociology 107(1): 147-82.

Strang, D. and S. Soule (1998). "Diffusion in organizations andsocial movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills:" AnnualReview of Sociology 24: 265-290.

Swanson, D. L. (1999). "Toward an integrative theory of business

32

and society: A research strategy for corporate social

performance:' Academy of Management Review 24(3): 506.

Tenkasi, R. V. and S. A. Mohrman (1999). Global change ascontextual collaborative knowledge creation.Organizational dimensions.of global. change:. no limits to

cooperation~D. L. Cooperrider and J. E. Dutton. ThousandOaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 114-136.

Thompson, J., G. Alvy, et al, (2000). "Social entrepreneurship - anew look at the people and the potential." ManagementDecision 38(5): 328-338.

Tolbert, C. M., T. A. Lyson, et al. (1998). "Local capitalism, civicengagement, and socioeconomic well-being:' Social Forces77(2): 401-427.

Useem, B. (1998). "Breakdown theories of collective action:'Annual Review of Sociology 24: 215-238.

Van den Bulte, C. and G. L. Lilien (2001). "Medical innovationrevisited: Social contagion versus marketing effort:'American Journal of Sociology 106(5):1409-35.

Vaughan, D. (1999). "The dark side of organizations: Mistake,

misconduct, and disaster:' Annual Review of Sociology 25:271-305.

Waddock, S. A. and J. E. Post (1991). "Social entrepreneurs andcatalytic change:' Public Administration Review 51 (5): 393.

Weick, K. E. (1998). "Improvisation as a mindset fororganizational analysis:' Organization Science 9(5): 543.

Weick, K. E. (1999). Sensemaking as an organizational dimensionof global change. Organizational dimensions of globalchange: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J.

E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 39-56.

Weick, K. E. and F. Westley (1996). Organizational learning:

33

Affirming an oxymoron. Handbook of organization studies.S. R. Clegg,C. Hardy and W. Nord, Sage: 440-458.

Wejnert, B. (2002). "Integrating models of diffusion ofinnovations: A conceptual framework:' Annual Review of

Sociology 28: 297-326.

Westley, F. (1999). "Not on our watch": The biodiversity crisis andglobal collaboration response. Organizational dimensions ofglobal-change: no limits to cooperation. D. L.Cooperriderand J. E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications:

88-113.

Westley, F. and H. Vredenburg (1997). "Interorganizationalcollaboration and the preservation of global biodiversity:'Organization Science 8(4):381-403.

Wilson, J. (2000). "Volunteering:' Annual Review of Sociology 26:215-240.

Young, M. P. (2002). "Confessional protest: The religious birth of

the U"S. national social movements:'American SociologicalReview 67(5): 660.

Zald, M. N. (1996). Culture, ideology, and strategic framing.Comparative perspectives on social movements. D.MacAdam, J. D. McCarthy and M. N. Zald. Cambridge,Cambridge University Press: 261-274.

Zald, M. N. (1999). Transnational and international socialmovements in a globalizing world: Creating culture,creating conflict. Organizational dimensions of globalchange: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J.

E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 168­184.

Zhao (1998). "Ecologies of social movements: Studentmobilization during the 1989 prodemocracy movement inBeijing:' American Journal of Sociology 103(6): 1493-1529.

34

35

Articles By Domain With Abstracts & Comments

Complex Adaptive SystemsBegun, J. W., B. Zimmerman, et al, (2002). "Health care

organizations as complex adaptive systems." Draft BookChapter [S. M. Mick and M. Wyttenbach(eds.) Advances in

- Health Care Organization Theory (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, forthcoming)].

AbstractFrom its roots in physics, mathematics, and biology, the study of complexityscience, or complex adaptive systems, has expanded into the domain oforganizations and systems of organizations. Complexity science is useful forstudying the evolution of complex organizations -- entities with multiple, diverse,interconnected elements. Evolution of complex organizations often isaccompanied by feedback effects, nonlinearity, and other conditions that add tothe complexity of existing organizations and the unpredictability oftheemergence of new entities.Health care organizations are an ideal setting for the application of complexityscience due to the diversity of organizational forms-and interactions amongorganizations that are evolving. Too, complexity science can benefit fromattention to the world's most complex human organizations. Organizations withinand across the health care sector are increasingly interdependent. Not only arenew, highly powerful and diverse organizational forms being created, but also therestructuring has occurred within very short periods of time.In this chapter, we review the basic tenets of complexity science. We identify aseries of key differences between the complexity science and establishedtheoretical approaches to studying health organizations, based on the ways inwhich time, space, and constructs are framed. The contrasting perspectives aredemonstrated using two case examples drawn from healthcare innovation andhealthcare integrated systems research. Complexity science broadens anddeepens the scope of inquiry into health care organizations, expandscorresponding methods of research, and increases the ability of theory togenerate valid research on complex organizational forms.

CommentBoth a handy, brief overview of main currents in lit on complexity in organizationsand a good example of the specific application of complexity themes to particularorganizational domains (in this case health care).

Boisot, M. and J. Child (1999). "Organizations as adaptive

36

systems in complex environments: The case of China:'Organization Science 10(3): 237.

AbstractThis paper treats organizations as adaptive systems that have to match thecomplexity of their environments. The nature of this complexity is analyzed bylinking an institutional Information-Space (I-Space) framework to the work ofcomplexity theorists. The I-Space framework identifies the codification,abstraction, and diffusion of information as culturalattributes. Codificationinvolves the assignment of data to categories, thus giving them form. Abstractioninvolves a reduction in the number of categories to which data needs to beassigned for a phenomenon to be apprehended. Information is diffused throughpopulations of data-processinq agents, thus constituting the diffusion dimension.Complexity theorists have identified the stability and structure of algorithmicinformation complexity in a way that corresponds to levels of codification andabstraction. Their identification of system parts and the richness of cross­coupling draws attention to the fabric of information diffusion. We discuss twomodes of adaptation to complex environments: complexity reduction andcomplexity absorption. Complexity reduction entails getting to understand thecomplexity and acting on it directly, including attempts at environmentalenactment. Complexity absorption entails creating options and risk-hedgingstrategies, often through alliances. The analysis, and its practical utility, isillustrated with reference to China, the world's largest social system. Historicalfactors have shaped the nature of complexity in China, giving it very differentcharacteristics than those typical of Western industrial countries. Itsorganizations and other social units have correspondingly handled thiscomplexity through a strategy of absorption rather than the reduction strategycharacteristic of Western societies. Western firms operating in China thereforeface a choice between maintaining their norms of complexity reduction oradopting a strategy of complexity absorption that is more consistent with Chineseculture. The specifics of these policy alternatives are explored, together with theiradvantages and disadvantages. The paper concludes with the outlines of apossible agenda for future research, focusing on the investigation of complexity­handling modes and the contingencies which may bear upon the choice betweenthem.

CommentA very unusual article. If you can wade through its dense, technical language, itprovides a lot of insight into the details (some of them) of the way that complexhuman systems might process information and develop "strategies" and forms.Very conceptual/mathematical at first, but does work through its ideas in anempirical way using China as an example.

Dent, E. B. (1999). "Complexity science: A worldview shift:'Emergence 1(4): 5.

37

AbstractOne of the frustrations of working in the exciting area of "complexity science inorganizations" is that there is no commonly accepted definition of what this termmeans ... The purpose of this article is to offer a simple definition for complexityscience and to demonstrate the shift in worldview necessary for complexityscience to become second nature to people as traditional science now is.

CommentKind of all over the place for an article attempting to offer a simple definition ofcomplexity, but some interesting historical information, .exarnples, and insight intocomplexity as both a generic new way of thinking and a specific way ofunderstanding organizational phenomena.

Gersick (1991). "Revolutionary-change theories: A multilevelexploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm."Academy of Management Review 16(1): 10-36.

AbstractResearch on how organizational systems develop and change is shaped, atevery level of analysis, by traditional assumptions about how change works. Newtheories in several fields are challenging some of the most pervasive of theseassumptions, by conceptualizing change as a punctuated equilibrium: analternation between long periods when stable infrastructures permit onlyincremental adaptations, and brief periods of revolutionary upheaval. This articlecompares models from six domains - adult, group, and organizationaldevelopment, history of science, biological evolution, and physical science - toexplicate the punctuated equilibrium paradigm and show its broad applicability fororganizational studies. Models are juxtaposed to generate new researchquestions about revolutionary change in organizational settings: how it istriggered, how systems function during such periods, and how it concludes. Thearticle closes with implications for research and theory.

CommentVery smart and useful overview and synthesis of various punctuated equilibriummodels. Though Gersick's ultimate focus is organizational change, most of thearticle is applicable to any sort of change in social systems in general. Would beinteresting to take the lit described in this article and think about the role thatintention plays or might play in systems that change via rhythms of punctuatedequilibrium (article doesn't address agency or intention in any deep way).

Glouberman, S. and B. Zimmerman (2002). "Complicated andcomplex systems: What would successful reform of

38

Medicare look like." Discussion paper submitted to theCommission on the Future of Health Care in Canada.

AbstractAuthors Glouberman and Zimmerman have written a discussion paper on healthcare reform in Canada in response to the Commission on the Future of HealthCare in Canada. The paper presents a history of the Canadian health system,and suggests how an alternative theoretical frame is needed for viewing andunderstanding the complexities of health care. They take a look at some ofthe"intractable choices" or opposing views appearing in the health care debates,and present a few case studies to high1ight governmental approaches to healthcare concerns: first, through a study of France's ranking in WHO health caresystems; the second, is a look at Brazil's attempts to address HIV/AIDS. Thefinal section of the paper addresses how complexity might be taken up inreforming Canada's health care system.

CommentGreat article (as the Social Innovation Think Tank well knows) that explorescomplexity themes from a broader, institutional perspective (as opposed to thepurely organizational perspective). Rich both in insight (Brenda's "simple,complicated, complex" perspective is described here among other things) and inexamples (e.g., the Brazil AIDS Case).

Goldman, M. and R. Schurman (2000). "Closing the "great divide":New social theory on society and nature." Annual Review ofSociology 26: 563-584.

AbstractTwenty years ago, two environmental sociologists made a bold call for aparadigmatic shift in the discipline of sociology-namely, one that would bringnature into the center of sociological inquiry and recognize the inseparability ofnature and society. In this essay, we review recent scholarship that seeks tomeetthis challenge. The respective strands of this literature come from themargins of environmental sociology and border on other arenas of social theoryproduction, including neo-Marxism, political ecology, materialist feminism, andsocial studies of science. Bringing together scholars from sociology,anthropology, geography, and history, each of these strands offers what weconsider the most innovative new work trying to move sociology beyond thenature/society divide.

CommentConcise review article on the various ways that nature is seen in sociologyliterature. Makes a strong case that any theory of social change will have toaccount for nature in some meaningful way. "Because ecological and socialproblems traverse conceptual, geographic, and species boundaries, human

39

membranes as well as cultures, [scholars] suggest that social analysis mustfollow them wherever they lead."

Holling, C. S. (2001). "Understanding the complexity of economic,ecological, and social systems."Ecosystems 4(5): 390.

AbstractHierarchies and adaptive cycles comprise the basis of ecosystems and social­ecological systems across scale-s. Together they form a panarchy. The panarchydescribes how a healthy system can inventand experiment, benefiting frominventions that create opportunity while being kept safe from those thatdestabilize because of their nature or excessive exuberance. Each level isallowed to operate at its own pace, protectedfrom above by slower, larger levelsbut invigorated from below by faster, smaller cycles of innovation. The wholepanarchy is therefore both creative and conserving. The interactions betweencycles in a panarchy combine learning with continuity. An analysis of this processhelps to clarify the meaning of "sustainable development." Sustainability is thecapacity to create, test, and maintain adaptive capability. Development is theprocess of creating, testing, and maintaining opportunity. The phrase thatcombines the two, "sustainable development," thus refers to the goal of fosteringadaptive capabilities and creating opportunities. It is therefore not an oxymoronbut a term that describes a logical partnership.

CommentEloquent and concise framing of the essentials of Holling's panarchy framework.Essential reading for anyone interested in systemic social innovation.

Levinthal, D. and M.Warglein(1999). "Landscape design:Designing for local action in complex worlds." OrganizationScience 10(3): 342.

AbstractIn recent years, the management literature has increasingly emphasized theimportance of self-organization and "local action" in contrast to prior traditions ofengineering control and design. While processes of self-organization are quitepowerful, they do not negate the possibility of design influences. They do,however, suggest that a new set of design tools or concepts may be useful. Weaddress this issue by considering the problem of landscape design-the tuning offitness landscapes on which actors adapt. We examine how alternativeorganizational designs influence actors' fitness landscapes and, in turn, thebehavior that these alternative designs engender. Reducing interdependenciesleads to robust designs that result in relatively stable and predictable behaviors.Designs that highlight interdependencies, such as cross-functional teams, lead to

40

greater exploration of possible configurations of actions, though at the possiblecost of coordination difficulties. Actors adapt not only on fixed landscapes,butalso on surfaces that are deformed by others' actions. Such coupled landscapeshave important implications for the emergence of cooperation in the face of socialdilemmas. Finally, actors' perceptions of landscapes are influenced by themanner in which they are framed by devices such as strategy frameworks andmanagerial accounting systems.

CommentAmbitious attempt to open up the concept of the "fitness landscape" from anorganizational perspective. Lots of interesting theory and a few groundedexamples. A handy article for anyone looking at the micro side of complexadaptive social systems. .~

71'\

,t:Marion, R. and J •. Bacon (2000). "Organizationalextinction and~ complex systems." Emergence 1 (4): 71.

AbstractHow do extinctions occur in robust, complex ecosystems? We will examine thisquestion for an "ecosystem" ... of formal social organizations. Interest inorganizational extinction is not new to organizational theory - there are a numberof articles in the social science literature that address just this issue. Ourapproach differs, however, in that we attempt to understand the dynamics ofextinction as a function of complex interaction among multiple organizationalactors. We will argue that it is the breakdown of such networks that [is] ultimatelyresponsible for organizational extinction.

CommentClever extension of complexity theory - looks at organizational failure as acomplex, systemic phenomenon, not a linear response to a single shock ormistake. It would be interesting to play this article off of Holling's stuff about'traps."

Milstein, B. (2002). "Syndemics Overview."AbstractSyndemics overview. The term "syndemic"refers to the phenomenon ofIinkedafflictions. Scholars and practitioners have long observed interactions amongdiseases, but it wasn't until the early 1990s that anthropologist Merrill Singersuggested that empirical connections among epidemics might signify theexistence of a higher-order phenomenon--a syndemic. The links below introducesome of the ideas and methods that are involved in exploring a syndemicorientation for public health.

41

CommentProvocativeway of understanding problems in complex systems - health systemsin this case, but might be readily adaptable to social systems in general.

Richardson, K. A. and M. R. Lissack (2001). "On the status ofboundaries, both natural and organizational: A complexsystems perspective." Emergence 3(4): 32-49.

AbstractContemporary science with its strong positivism tends totrivialize the nature ofboundaries. Boundaries are supposedlyreal and our ability to recognize them as such is regarded as a straightforwardexercise. This by-product is a direct result of science's focus on the quantifiable

~ and mathematizable(Goodwin, 2000). Given such a na"ive belief in the (ontological) status ofboundaries, it is easy to understand how some scientists can wholeheartedly buyinto their models as true representations of what is. If absolute boundaries exist,then as scientists we have simply to map them and with a little mathematicalmanipulation "heypresto!"-we have trueknowledge of the universe. Scientists aren't the only ones who approach naturein such a black-and-white manner, however. We are all frequently guilty ofunquestioningly accepting the efficacyof certain physical and conceptualboundaries that may be totally inappropriate for the context of interest. Managersding on to organizational models that have far outlived their use and relevance;politicians dogmatically cling to ideologies that should have been put to restmany decades ago; employees at every level of organization naively assumethat their view of the world is the "right" one.

CommentAbstract but lively article that explores the concept of organizational/socialboundaries from a complexity perspective.

Sawyer, R. K. (2001). "Emergence in sociology: Contemporaryphilosophy of mind and some implications for sociologicaltheory." American Journal of Sociology 107(3): 551-85.

AbstractMany accounts of the micro-macro link use the philosophical notion ofemergence to argue that collective phenomena are collaboratively created byindividuals yet are not reducible to explanation in terms of individuals. However,emergence has also been invoked by methodological individualists; they acceptthe existence of emergent social properties yet claim that such properties can bereduced to explanations in terms of individuals and their relationships. Thus,

42

contemporary sociological uses of emergence are contradictory and unstable.This article clarifies this situation by developing an account of emergence basedin contemporary philosophy of mind. The philosophical account is used toevaluate contradictory sociological theories. Several unresolved issues facingtheories of emergence in sociology are identified.

CommentVery helpful and careful review of the concept of emergence in the sociology lit.Should be read by anyone who is exploring micro-macro connections and wantsto think about emergent social structures deeply and without using the term 0"emergent" simplistically or cavalierly. ---;ij-

Institutional Theory & Social Construction

Clemens, E. S. and J. M. Cook (1999). "Politics andinstitutionalism: Explaining durability and change." AnnualReview of Sociology 25: 441-446.

AbstractFrom the complex literatures on "institutionalisrns" in political science andsociology, various components of institutional change are identified: mutability,contradiction, multiplicity, containment and diffusion, learning and innovation, andmediation. This exercise results in a number of clear prescriptions for theanalysis of politics and institutional change: disaggregate institutions intoschemas and resources; decompose institutional durability into processes ofreproduction, disruption, and response to disruption; and, above all, appreciatethe multiplicity and heterogeneity of the institutions that make up the social world.Recent empirical work on identities, interests, alternatives, and politicalinnovation illustrates how political scientists and sociologists have begun todocument the consequences of institutional contradiction and multiplicity and totrace the workings of institutional containment, diffusion, and mediation.

CommentOne of the more recent reviews of new institutional theory. Very theoretical, buthelpful as background. Particularly strong in its understanding of the complexityand multiplicity of the institutional world. "Taken together, these [institutional]literatures suggest that the analysis of institutional change rests on anappreciation of the heterogeneity of institutional arrangements and the resultingpatterns of conflict or prospects for agency and innovation."

Hardy, C. and N. Phillips (1999). "No joking matter: Discursivestruggle in the Canadian refugee system." Organization

43

Studies 20(1): 1.Abstract

Organizations often engage in discursive struggles as they attempt to shape andmanage the institutional field of which they are a part. This struggle is influencedby broader discourses at the societal level that enable and constrain discursiveactivity within the institutional field. This relationship is examined by combining astudy of political cartoons, as indicators of the broader societal discourse aroundimmigration, with a case study of the Canadian refugee system, a-complexinstitutional field. Analysis reveals the complex intertextual and interdiscursiverelations that characterize and surround institutional fields, and shows howdiscursive struggle in the refugee determination system is shaped by, andshapes, broader societal discourses.

CommentVery clever paper that manages to tease out in an empirical way the dynamics ofthe interaction between institutional fields and their larger discursive contexts.Useful for social innovators trying to understand the leverage points at variouslevels of analysis/action.

Ingram, P. and K. Clay (2000). "The choice-within-constraintsnew institutionalism and implications for sociology." AnnualReview of Sociology 26: 525-546.

AbstractThe variant of new institutionalism that is our focus is a pan-disciplinary theorythat asserts that actors pursue their interests by making choices withininstitutional constraints. We organize our review of the theory around itsbehavioral assumptions, the operation of institutional forms, and processes ofinstitutional change. At each stage, we give particular attention to the potentialcontributions of sociology to the theory. The behavioral assumptions ofthe theoryamount to bounded rationality and imply fransaction costs, which, in the absenceof institutions, may frustrate collective ends. The principle weakness of thesebehavioral assumptions is a failure to treat preferences as endogenous. Wecategorize the institutions that arise in response to transaction costs as towhether they are public or private in their source and centralized or decentralizedin their making. In detailing the resulting categories of institutional forms, weidentify key interdependencies across the public/private andcentralized/decentralized dimensions. The new institutionalism is in particularneed of better theory about private decentralized institutions, and theorists couldturn to embeddedness theory and cognitive new-institutional theory as a sourceof help on this topic. The dominant view of institutional change is that it isevolutionary, driven by organizational competition, and framed by individualbeliefs and shared understandings. Sociology can refine the change theory byadding better explanations of the behavior of organizations, and of the processes

44

by which institutional alternatives come to be viewed as acceptable orunacceptable.

CommentStuffy article overly focused on rationality and the economics perspective, thoughit claims to be pan-disciplinary.

Lamont, M. and V. Molnar (2002). "The Study of Boundaries in theSocial Sciences." Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167-195.

AbstractIn recent years, the concept of boundaries has been at the center of influentialresearch agendas in anthropology, history, political science, social psychology,and sociology. This article surveys some of these developments while describingthe value added provided by the concept, particularly concerning the study ofrelational processes. It discusses literatures on (a)social and collective identity; (b) class, ethnic/racial, and gender/sex inequality; ( c) professions, knowledge,and science; and ( d)communities, national identities, and spatial boundaries. Itpoints to similar processes at work across a range of institutions and sociallocations. It also suggests paths for further developments, focusing on therelationship between social and symbolic boundaries, cultural mechanisms forthe production of boundaries, difference and hybridity, and cultural membershipand group classifications.

CommentReview of various perspectives on boundaries in the literature of severaldomains. Might be helpful for thinking more deeply about dialogue and about theconstruction of non-formal organizations/movements, though organizationalboundaries per se are not addressed.

Lawrence, T. B., C. Hardy, et al. (2002). "Institutional effects ofinterorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto­institutions:" Academy of Management Journal 45(1): 281­290.

AbstractWe argue that collaboration can act as a source of change in institutional fieldsthrough the generation of "proto-institutions": new practices, rules, andtechnologies that transcend a particular collaborative relationship and maybecome new institutions if they diffuse sufficiently. A four-year study of thecollaborative activities of a small nongovernmental organization in Palestinesuggests that collaborations that are both highly embedded and have highlyinvolved partners are the most likely to generate proto-institutions.

45

CommentA great article. One of the few detailed, qualitative looks at how micro (and orglevel) interactions can begin to produce new institutional patterns. Very importantfor understanding the micro-macro connection vis-a;.,vis social innovation. Theargument that collaboration is a primary engine of the development of newinstitutions feels intuitively right, even thought this is just one small case study.

Mintzberg, H. and F. Westley (2000). '"Sustaining the institutionalenvironment.'" Organization Studies 21: 71.

AbstractSustaining the physical environment requires sustenance of the associatedinstitutional environment. Questions are raised about this, based on theobservation of a day in each of the lives of 2 headquarters managers atGreenpeace, the Executive Director and a Director of certain of the central units.This analysis looks beyond the obvious doing and obvious planning, beyond theobviousactinq and the obvious politicking.

CommentA micro look at the way that two individuals work to navigate a complexinstitutional environment. Helpful for grounding institutional thinking.with respectto the roles and intentions of individual actors. Focus is on organizationalperspectives more than on social movement perspectives.

Perez-Aleman, P. (2000). '"Learning, adjustment and economicdevelopment: Transforming firms, the state andassociations in Chile.'" World Development 28(1): 41.

AbstractThis article views learning processes as key to successful economic adjustment.It discusses results of research conducted in Chile, focused on the agroindustryand footwear sectors. It identifies specific problems that large and small firmsface to upgrade production, and stresses the limits of focusing exclusively onmarket reforms for achieving growth. The article discusses how institutionsreshape to facilitate learning and improve performance in Chile, particularly therelations between firms; the reorientation of trade associations; and the state'srole as facilitator of collective learning processes.

CommentUnusual article that develops, in a grounded way, a nuanced perspective on therelationship between institutions (both public and private) and economic change.Offers some themes that are contrary to much conventional thinking about

46

markets, institutions and the role of government.

Stolte, J. F., G. A. Fine,et al. (2001). "Social miniaturism: Seeingthe big through the small in social psychology.II AnnualReview of Sociology 27: 387-413.

AbstractThe distinctive contribution of sociological social psychology can be referred toas sociological mlniaturlsrn, a way of interpreting social processes andinstitutions that is microsociological more than it is psychological. We argue that

. social psychology of this variety permits the examination of large-scale socialissues by means of investigation of small-scale social situations. The power ofthis approach to social life is that it permits recognition of the dense texture ofeveryday life, permits sociologists to understand more fully a substantive domain,and permits interpretive control. In the chapter we provide examples of thisapproach from two quite distinct theoretical orientations: symbolic interactionismand social exchange theory. We discuss the ways in which the study of twosubstantive topics, social power and collective identity, using these perspectivescan be informed by closer collaboration between theorists within sociologicalsocial psychology. In the end it is our hope that pursuing such integrativetheoretical and methodological efforts will produce a more completeunderstanding of important social phenomena. We offer sociological miniaturismas a promising vehicle for advancing the.earlier call for greater mutualappreciation of and rapprochement between diverse lines of social psychologicalwork in sociology.

CommentHelpful methodological take on the relationship between the micro and macrolevels of various social processes/structures. Useful for anyone attempting to linkindividual and organizational themes with large scale institutional themes.

Strang, D. and M. W. Macy (2001). "In search of excellence: Fads,success stories, and adaptive emulation." American Journalof Sociology 107(1): 147-82.

AbstractThe faddishness of the business community is often noted and lamented but notwell understood by standardmodels of innovation and diffusion. We combinearguments about orqaruzationalcognition and institutional mimicry to develop a .model of adaptive emulation, where firms respond to perceived failure byimitating their most successful peers. Computational experiments show that thisprocess generates empirically plausible cascades of adoption, even ifinnovations are entirely worthless. Faddish cycles are most robust across

47

alternative treatments of managerial decision making where innovations havemodest positive effects on outcomes. These results have broad implications forthe faddishness of a business community increasingly marked by media-drivenaccounts of success, and for the properties of organizational practices that arehot oneday and cold the next.

CommentPuts technical outcomes and functions back into the institutional lit (which wasoriginally developed as a response to functionalist, overly technical approaches)but in some surprising and paradoxical ways. Worth a look for those trying tounderstand the diffusion of innovations more deeply.

Social MovementsBaiocchi, G.(2003). "Emergent public spheres: Talking politics in

participatory government:' American Sociological Review68(1):.52.

AbstractThis article addresses the question of whether and how participation ingovernment promotes the conditions for participants to engage in the open­ended and public-minded discussion heralded by democratic theorists.Ethnographic evidence shows how participants in assemblies of the "participatorybudget" in the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil, created open-ended and public-mindeddiscussion in two of the city's poor districts. The urban poor of Latin Americanhave often been treated as unlikely candidates for democratic engagement, butin these meetings participants regularly carved out spaces for civic discourse anddeliberation, deploying a language of the commonality of needs as a vocabularyof public interest. In a district with organized networks of civil society,experienced community activists played an important role in curtailing conflict,while in a district without such networks, the assemblies were severely disruptedat times by virtue of being the "only place in the community" that could serve as astaging ground for some participants to manage their reputations. A comparisonwith a prior period in both districts shows that before the budgeting assemblieswere created it was difficult to sustain any kind of regular meeting place beyondindividual neighborhoods to carry out these discussions. The notion of the "publicsphere" is broadened, calling for a revision of the stark separation of state andcivil society in democratic theory.

CommentInteresting argument against the notion of civil society as a kind of disinterestedand separate counterpoint to the public sphere. Porto Alegre's hands-onbUdgeting process suggests that substantial engagement and energy can begenerated when there is an integration of public and civil society structures.From a social innovation perspective, it's intriguing to think about policy as

48

something meaningfully integrated into the life of the community rather than assomething simply concocted by "representatives" and then "implemented" in thecommunity. The article provides rich ethnographic detail and several interestingperspectives on the Porto Alegre experience. But it underemphasizes the mostimportant thing, which is that people are engaged in Porto Alegre because theyare actually deciding things (Le., howto spend the city's budget), not simplygiving advice and input, which is what citizen participation usually amounts to inthe U.S. and Canada.

. Benford,R. and D. Snow (2000). ""Framing processes and socialmovements: An overview and assessment.."Annual Reviewof Sociology 26: 611-639.

AbstractThe recent proliferation of scholarship on collective action frames and framingprocesses in relation to social movements indicates that framing processes havecome to be regarded, alongside resource mobilization and political opportunityprocesses, as a central dynamic in understanding the character and course ofsocial movements. This review examines the analytic utility of the framingliterature for understanding social movement dynamics. We first review howcollective action frames have been conceptualized, including their characteristicand variable features. We then examine the literature related to framingdynamics and processes. Next we review the literature regarding variouscontextual factors that constrain and facilitate framing processes. We concludewith an elaboration of the consequences of framing processes for othermovement processes and outcomes. We seek throughout to provide clarificationof the linkages between framing concepts/processes and other conceptual andtheoretical formulations relevant to social movements, such as schemes andideology.

CommentGood review of the burgeoning frame lit in social movements. Useful for SI, sinceSI often involves fuzzy contexts that don't lend themselves to political andresource mobilization approaches. Frames here are cast as something more fluidthan ideology and generally viewed as continually "negotiated shared meaning."Cf dialogue which involves shared meaning, but is not "negotiated" per se.Overall, the SM frame lit seems to be moving toward a more socially constructed,dialogic view of social change, but is still frequently caught up in the kind oflinear, strategic language that dominates earlier SM lit. In fact, the article notesthat there are many empirical studies of frames from a strategic perspective, butfew from a discursive perspective. The lit also tends to be focused on "injusticeframes" though it does acknowledge positive frames associated with religious orself-help movements, etc.

49

Chwe,M. S.-Y. (1999). "Structure and strategy in collectiveaction." American Journal of Sociology 105(1): 128-56.

AbstractThis article considers both structural and strategic influences on collective action.Each person in a group wants to participate only if the total number taking part isat least her threshold; people use a network to communicate their thresholds.People are strategically rational in that they are completely rationaland also takeinto account that others are completely rational. The model shows first thatnetwork position IS much more important in influencing the revolt of people withlow thresholds than people with high thresholds. Second, it shows that stronglinks are better for revolt when thresholds are low, and weak links are betterwhen thresholds arehigh. Finally, the model generalizes the threshold models ofSchelling (1978) and Granovetter (1978) and shows that their findings that revoltis very sensitive to the thresholds of people "early" in the process dependsheavily on the assumption that communication is never reciprocal.

CommentA dry but possibly useful take on the relationship between network theory andsocial movements.

Edelman, M. (2001). "Social movement: Changing paradigms andforms of politics." Annual Review of Anthropology 30: 285­317.

AbstractTheories of collective action have undergone a number of paradigm shifts, from"mass behavior" to "resource mobilization," "political process," and "new socialmovements." Debates have centered on the applicability of these frameworks indiverse settings, on the periodization of collective action, on the divisive orunifying impact of identity politics, and on the appropriateness of politicalengagement by researchers. Transnational activist networks are developing newprotest repertoires that challenge anthropologists and other scholars to rethinkconventional approaches to social movements.

CommentGood broad overview of major strands in social movement lit. The last section onmodern transnational movements (e.g., antiglobalization, environmentalism, etc.)offers some particularly useful perspectives for social innovation (organizingstructures and tactics/techniques).

Giugni, M. (1998). -"Was it worth the effort: The outcomes and

50

consequences of social movements." Annual Review ofSociology 24: 371-393.

AbstractResearch on social movements has usually addressed issues of movementemergence and mobilization, yet has paid less attention to their outcomes andconsequences. Although there exists a considerable amount of work on thisaspect, little systematic research has been done so far. Most existing workfocuses on political and policy outcomes Ofmovements, whereas few studiesaddress their broader cultural and institutional effects. Furthermore, we still knowlittle about the indirect and unintended consequences produced by movements.Early studies have dealt with the effectiveness of disruptive and violent actionsand with the role of several organizational variables for movement success. Morerecently, scholars have begun to analyze movement outcomes in their politicalcontext by looking at the role of public opinion, allies, and state structures. Acomparative perspective promises to be a fruitful avenue of research in thisregard.

CommentGood look at the sparse lit on the effects of social movements. In general, litseems to indicate that focused, single-issue movements with coherent orgstructures are the most effective, particularly when they use violent or disruptivemeans. However, these findings are problematized by thehistorical/cultural/political contexts of various movements, so the article's generalconclusion is that a lot of work still needs to be done before we really understandthe cause and effect relationships inherent in social movements.

Hedstrom, P., R. Sandell, et al, (2000). "Mesoloevel networks andthe diffusion of social movements: The case of the SwedishSocial Democratic Party:' American Journal of Sociology106(1}: 145-72.

AbstractIn analyzing the spatial diffusion of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, thisarticle introduces the notion of a mesolevel network. A mesolevel network is asocial network that differs in three important respects from interpersonalmicrolevel networks directly linking prior and potential adopters of a practice toone another: (1) it is generated by a different causal process than the microlevelnetwork; (2) it tends tobe much sparser than themicrolevel network; and (3) thetypical edge of a mesolevel network bridges much longer sociometric andgeographic distances than the typical edge of a microlevel network. These typesof mesolevel networks are important because they can dramatically influence thespeed at which a contagious practice will diffuse. The mesolevel network focusedupon in this article is the network that emerged out of the travel routes of politicalagitators affiliated with the Social Democratic Party. Computational modeling

51

shows that the diffusion of the Social Democratic Party is likely to have beenconsiderably influenced by the structure of this network. Empirical analyses ofthe founding of party organizations during the period 1894 1911 support thesetheoretical predictions and suggest that this mesolevel network was ofconsiderable importance for the diffusion of the Swedish Social DemocraticParty.

CommentVery interesting paper that offers some potential tips for social innovators. The

- mesolevel network is a sparse set of relationships cast over a wide.territory. It isdriven by a small set of committed (essentially evangelical) "agitators. Theauthors attempt to show that this kind of network can increase the speed andscope of change, even though traditional network theory presupposes thatnetwork density is the defining·factor.

Ingram, P. and T. Simons (2000). "State formation, ideologicalcompetition, and the ecology of Israeli workerscooperatives, 1920-1992." Administrative Science Quarterly45(1): 25.

AbstractThis paper investigates the effect of community-wide political and ideologicalinterests on the failure rate of Israeli workers' cooperatives. Political order may beprovided by the state or through membership in a federation. Organizations thatrepresent rival ideologies cause ideological competition, which should increasefailure, while organizations that represent shared ideologies cause ideologicalmutualism, which should decrease failure. The context of Israeli workers'cooperatives provides a natural laboratory for testing these ideas, as it spans theformation of the Israeli state. The analysis indicates the relevance ofinterdependence for the evolution of organizational populations.

CommentNotable for some insight on the somewhat paradoxical role of the state inproviding stability for the survival and effectiveness of social movements.

Kollock, P. (1998). "Social dilemmas: The anatomy ofcooperation." Annual Review of Sociology 24: 183-214.

AbstractThe study of social dilemmas is the study of the tension between individual andcollective rationality. In a social dilemma, individually reasonable behavior leadsto a situation in which everyone is worse off. The first part of this review is adiscussion of categories of social dilemmas and how they are modeled. The key

52

two-person social dilemmas (Prisoner's Dilemma, Assurance, Chicken) andmultiple-person social dilemmas (public goods dilemmas and commonsdilemmas) are examined. The second part is an extended treatment of possiblesolutions for social dilemmas. These solutions are organized into three broadcategories based on whether the solutions assume egoistic actors and whetherthe structure of the situation can be changed: Motivational solutions assumeactors are not completely egoistic and so give some weight to the outcomes oftheir partners. Strategic solutions assume egoistic actors, and neither of thesecategories of solutions involve changing the fundamental structure of thesituation. Solutions that do involve changingJhe rules of the game areconsidered in the section on structural solutions. I conclude the review with adiscussion of current research and directions for future work.

CommentHard to get too excited about such a rationality-based, game-centered approach,but may be of some use when thinking about collective strategies.

Kriesi, H. (1996). Organizational structure of new socialmovements in a political context. Comparativeperspectives on social movements. D.,MacAdam, J. D.McCarthy and M. N. Zald. Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress: 261-274.

AbstractDry but useful examination/synthesis of issues related to social movemenforgstructures. Typology of social movement org structures that is reminiscent ofMintzberg's associations typology with a power twist. Axes:constituency/authorities orientation and no participation/participation. Groups areservice, self-help, political representation, and political mobilization. Maps goalorientations onto this typology e.g., commercialization, involution,institutionalization and radicalization. Explores the org infrastructure appropriateto each category of org from a political perspective.

Comment

Loveman, M. (1998). "High-risk collective action: Defendinghuman rights in Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina:' AmericanJournal of Sociology 104(2): 477..525.

AbstractUnder what conditions will individuals risk their lives to resist repressive states?This question is addressed through comparative analysis of the emergence ofhuman rights organizations under military dictatorships in Chile, Uruguay, and

53

Argentina. While severe state repression is expected to lead to generalizeddemobilization, these cases reveal that repression may directly stimulatecollective action. The potential for sustained collective action in high-risk contextsdepends upon the relationship between strategies of repression and theparticular configuration of embedded social networks; it is more likely wheredense yet diverse interpersonal networks are embedded within broader nationaland transnational institutional and issue networks.

CommentEvocative article with lots of interesting history. Paints a compelling portrait of thecomplex relationship structures (both personal and institutional) necessary toenable social movements to survive in the face of brutal repression. Theconnection between dense, face-to-face, very personal networks and externalideological/institutional supportseemslikely to be important in all types of socialinnovation change efforts.

McCarthy, J. D. (1996). Constraints and opportunities in adopting,adapting,and inventing..Comparative perspectives onsocial movements. D. MacAdam, J. D. McCarthy and M. N.Zald. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 141-151.

AbstractTypology of "movement-mobilizing structures." Informal/formal and non­movement initiated/movement initiated. Friendship networks, neighborhoods,work networks, churches, unions, professional associations, activist networks,

. affinity groups, memory communities, SMOs, protest committees, movementschools. Calls for the development of richer description of various structuralconfigurations, exploration of structural innovation, and examination of the role offraming in choosing and adapting mobilizing structures.

Comment

Oliver, P. and D. Myers (1999). "How events enter the publicsphere: Conflict, location, and sponsorship in localnewspaper coverage of public events:' American Journal ofSociology 105(1): 38-87.

AbstractProtest events occur against the backdrop of public life. Of 382 public events inpolice records for one year in a small U.S. city, 45% convey a message, 14%involve social conflict, and 13% are standard protest event forms. Localnewspapers covered 32% of all events, favoring events that were large, involvedconflict, were sponsored by business groups, and occurred in central locations.

54

The more liberal paper also favored rallies and events sponsored by nationalsocial movement organizations (SMOs) or recreational groups. Discussioncenters on the ways these factors shape the content of the public sphere.

CommentMildly tactically useful discussion of the types of protests most likely to getnewspaper coverage.

Polletta, F. and J. M. Jasper (2001). "Collective identity andsocial movements." Annual Review of Sociology 27:283­305.

Abstract

Sociologists have turned to collective identity to fill gaps in resource mobilizationand political process accounts of the emergence, trajectories, and impacts ofsocial movements. Collective identity has been treated as an alternative tostructurally given interests in accounting for the claims on behalf of which peoplemobilize, an alternative to selective incentives in understanding why peopleparticipate, an alternative to instrumental rationality in explaining what tacticalchoices activists make, and an alternative to institutional reforms in assessingmovements' impacts. Collective identity has been treated both too broadly andtoo narrowly, sometimes applied to too many dynamics, at other times made intoa residual category within structuralist, state-centered, and rationalist accounts.

CommentBrief exploration of collective identity as driver of mobilization, participation, anddecision making, and as an "alternative to institutional reforms in assessingmovements' impacts."

Sandell, R. (2001). "Organizational growth and ecologicalconstraints: The growth of social movements in Sweden,1881 to 1940." American Sociological Review 66(5): 672.

AbstractBased on the theoretical framework of organizational ecology, it is suggested thatsocial movement organizations are inert structures that rarely exceed their initialsize. The ecological concept of organizational growth is tested using membershipdata for Sweden from 1881 to 1940 for virtually all local social movementorganizations (29,193 organizations) in three major social movements: thetemperance, free church, and trade union movements. Findings show that theorganizations in two of the movements have average growth trajectoriesapproximating zero. The ecological argument is then expanded to include

55

information on the movements' organizational niches and intra- andintermovement density development. After controlling for the local organization'sinitial size, findings reveal that the remaining variation in aggregate membershipis more likely to depend on population and niche dynamics (which organizationalecologists focus on) than on the capacity of the movement's local organizationsto expand. These findings are consistent for all three Swedish movements. Theecological argument and the findings presented here are contrary to almost allresearch on social movements, which takes for granted thatsocial movementorganizations are necessarily capable of individual growth.

Comment .Startling and counterintuitive research suggesting that social movementsare~"ecolo.gica,IIYconstrained. and are essentially incapable of being actively "gro " '. .beyond their original sociallgeographicallandscape/location.

Staggenborg, S. (1998). "Social movement communities andcycles of protest: The emergence and maintenance of alocal women's movement." Social Problems 45(2): 180(25).

AbstractSocial movement theorists have argued that multiple movements emerge duringcycles of protest in response to political opportunities. This article develops theconcept of a "social movement community" and contends that the culture andcommunity of a protest cycle, rather than political opportunities, attract manyparticipants and provide organizational and tactical opportunities for newmovements. I examine historical changes in the local women's movementcommunity in Bloomington, Indiana, to explain how some movements are able toendure, and even thrive, after the decline of a protest cycle; their individualmovement communities sustain activists and sometimes partially recreate theatmosphere of a protest cycle.

CommentContrasts explanations of social movements as driven by specific politicalopportunities (not sustainable) with exploration of "movement communities"based on cultures that "sustain activists" after the initial political opportunity isgone. Argues that "movements rarely have clear beginnings or endings, and theyoverlap with other movements with similar values in the same 'social movementfamily.'" Thus, "social movement communities are critical to the emergence andsurvival of social movements."

Stevenson, W. B. and D. Greenberg (2000). "Agency and socialnetworks: Strategies of action in a social structure of

56

position, opposition, and opportunity." AdministrativeScience Quarterly 45(4):651.

AbstractThis study uses social movement concepts to explain the success and failure ofactors in a network of relationships trying to influence policies on environmentalissues in a small city. Results show that strategies to take action and mobilizeothers in a network of interorganizational relationships can vary depending on thesocial context, which consists of the political opportunity structure defined bygovernment regulators, whether the actor faces opposition, and the actor'sposition in the network. Decisions to-engage in strategies to try to influencegovernment regulators directly, to use a broker to reach agreements with theopposition, or to form a coalition with actors in other organizations to influencegovernment decision makers are affected by this social context. Results alsoshow that even peripheral actors, usually assumed to be powerless in networkstudies, c~n influence policy if they use a direct-contact strategy and the politicalopportunity structure is favorable.

CommentHelpful exploration of network-based strategic options open to social-changeactors (focused on policy). Makes use of social movement lit to reintroduce actorintentionality into network theory.

Strang, D. and S. Soule (1998). "Diffusion in organizations andsocial movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills:' AnnualReview of Sociology 24: 265-290.

AbstractThere has been rapid growth in the study of diffusion across organizations andsocial movements in recent years, fueled by interest in institutional argumentsand in network and dynamic analysis. This research develops a sociologicallygrounded account of change emphasizing the channels along which practicesflow. Our review focuses on characteristic lines of argument, emphasizing thestructural and cultural logic of diffusion processes. We argue for closertheoretical attention to why practices diffuse at different rates and via differentpathways in different settings. Three strategies for further development areproposed: broader comparative research designs, closer inspection of thecontent of social relations between collective actors, and more attention todiffusion industries run by the media and communities of experts.

CommentWell written overview of literature on diffusion. Lots of useful concepts and someinteresting links between social movements lit and institutional lit.

57

Useem, B. (1998). "Breakdown theories of collective action."Annual Review of Sociology 24: 215-238.

AbstractHistorically, breakdown theory dominated the sociological study of collectiveaction. In the 1970s, this theory was found to be increasingly unable to accountfor contemporaneous events and newly discovered historical facts. Resourcemobilization theory displaced breakdown theory as the dominant paradigm. Yetthe evidence against breakdown theory is weak once a distinction is madebetween routine and nonroutlne collective action. Several recent contributionsaffirm the explanatory power of breakdown theory for nonroutine collectiveaction. Breakdown theory also contributes to an understanding of the use ofgovernmental force against protest and of the moral features of collective action.Breakdown and resource mobilization theories explain different types ofphenomena, and both are needed to help account for the full range of forms ofcollective action.

CommentModerately helpful review/refinement of theories dealing with the role that socialbreakdown does or doesn't play in social change.

Young, M. P. (2002). "Confessional protest: The religious birth ofthe U.S. national social movements." American SociologicalReview 67(5): 660.

AbstractWestern forms of protest were fundamentally altered in the early nineteenthcentury. Scholars from a "contentious politics" perspective have identified thisrupture in protest forms with the emergence of the "national social movement"and explain the rupture as the result of interactions with national states. Scholarsfrom a "life politics" perspective argue thatthe paradigmatic movements of todayhave moved beyond the political struggles of the nineteenth century and toward anew form of protest that unfolds within civil society and fuses matters of personaland social change. Protests in the United States in the 1830s, however, raiseserious doubts about both of these claims. The first U.S. national socialmovements were not a heritage of the state and they engaged in a form of lifepolitics. The temperance and antislavery movements emerged in interaction withreligious institutions-not state institutions-and pursued goals that mixed personaland social transformation. A cultural mechanism combining the evangelicalschemas of public confession and the special sins of the nation launchedsustained and interregional protests. The intensive and extensive power of theseconfessional protests called individual and nation to repent and reform, andmobilized actors and resources within a national infrastructure of religiousinstitutions to challenge drinking and slavery.

58

CommentInteresting historical take. arguing that "modern" identity-based socialmovements that link personal and social change are not so new after all.Movements that have been painted as almost purely political/structural might nothave been any such thing. The more things change ...

Zald, M. N. (~996). Culture, ideology, and strategic framing. .

Comparative perspectives on social movements. D.MacAdam, J. D.McCarthy and M. N. Zald. Cambridge,

_ Cambridge University Press: 261-274.AbstractDiscussion of strategic role of framing in social movements and the relationshipsbetween frames, culture, and ideology.

Comment

Zhao (1998). "Ecologies of social movements: Studentmobilization during the 1989 prodemocracy movement inBeijing." American Journal of Sociology 103(6): 1493·1529.

AbstractBased on 70 interviews with informants who were mostly students during the1989 Beijing student movement, the author found that the ecology of universitycampuses in Beijing enclosed a huge number of students in a small area with aunique spatial distribution and regulated their spatial activities. This ecologynurtured many close-knit student networks, as well asdirectly exposed all Beijingstudents to a collective action environment when the movement started. Theseecological conditions not only sustained a- high rate of movement participation butalso facilitated the formation of many ecology-dependent strategies of studentmobilization, which in turn patterned the dynamics of the movement.

CommentUseful paper when thinking about the role of place in social movements, esp. incontrast to the more diffuse global social movements that are the focus of somuch current study.

59

Organization Theory & Organizational DevelopmentAram, J. D. (1999). Constructing and deconstructing global

change organizations. Organizational dimensions of globalchange: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J.E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 235­251.

AbstractDiscussion of global change organizations from several perspectives. Contrastsglobal change organizations (orgs. based on normative values and public goods)

- with traditional market organizations (orgs. based on utilitarian values and privategoods). Frames them as networks of weak ties. Looks at variouscultural/intellectual currents that drive global changeorg members. And explores

- a few major global forces that interfere and compete with global org perspectives(e.g., ethno-nationalism).

CommentUseful rethinking of basic O'T constructs with respect to emerging global orgforms. Helpful when thinking about the.kind of diffuse, network-y structures thatseem to be so prevalent when looking at broad scale organizing for socialchange. These structures aren't exactly movements and aren't exactly orgs aswe've come to know them, so new ways of framing them in aT/Sociology areneeded and this article offers some decent starting points.

Bouwen, R. and C.Steyaert (1999). From a dominant voicetoward multivoiced cooperation: Mediating metaphors forglobal change. Organizational dimensions of global change:no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J. E. Dutton.Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 291·319.

AbstractCall for movement toward "multivoiced cooperation" in global development.Offers four metaphors for "multivoiced living together:" building the Tower ofBabel; dialogical imagination; polyphonic chorus; and strangers' meeting. Centralquestion: "How can we frame human response to global change so that all voicesfrom different and unequal positions can be heard in organizational settings withequivalent seats?"

CommentGood addition to the relational/dialogical lit. Metaphors might be useful forplaying with paradoxes of relational discourse, e.g., both dialogue and"strangers" (cf Powerful Stranger) are considered.

60

Brinkerhoff, D~ W. (1999). "Exploring gstate-civilsocietycollaboration: Policy partnerships in developing countries."Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28(4):59.

AbstractThis article examines state--civil society partnerships for policy implementation,focusing on the basic factors partnerships need to deal with to be effective.These include specification of objectives and degre-e of convergence,mechanisms for combining effort and managing cooperation, determination ofappropriate roles and responsibilities, and capacity to fulfill those roles andresponsibilities.

CommentPretty straightforward article, but with some helpful, grounded suggestions formaking governmentiNGO partnerships work in various (often difficult or evenantagonistic) political contexts.

Brown, L. D. and D. Ashman (1999). Social capital, mutualinfluence, and social learning in intersectoral problemsolving in Africa and Asia. Organizational dimensions ofglobal change: -no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperriderand J. E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications:1-36.

AbstractOpens up the concept of social capital a bit and explores the roles of socialcapital, types of decision making, and social learning in the success/failure ofglobal change efforts. Looks at org structures that are anchored in local socialcapital, collaborative (bridging sectoral and power divides), and that are able to"learn" (create new structures/behaviors) via connection and moderate to highconflict. Conclusions are based on thirteen large case studies.

CommentUseful empirical stuff for thinking about different types of social capital and theroles they might play in the success or failure of change efforts.

Cooperrider, D. L. and J. E. Dutton (1999). No limits tocooperation: An introduction to the organizationaldimensions of global change. Organizational dimensions ofglobal change: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider

61

and J. E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications:1-36.

AbstractOverview of the concept of global change organization. Positions "global changeresearch" as new OT/Soc Sci domain focusing on trans-boundary (intersectoral,nonsectoral) org approaches to complex, systemic social problems. Suggeststhat collaboration may be a "higher order adaptive strategy" than competition andexplores multiple perspectives on global-scale, collaborative orgs. Major themesinclude collective sense-making, innovative org structures, and socialconstruction vis-a-vis global change. -

CommentGreat intro to great book. Powerful combination of organizational, ethical, andsocial construction themes.

Crossan, M. M., H. W. Lane, et al. (1999). "An organizationallearning framework: From intuition to institution." Academyof Management Review 24(3): 522.

AbstractAlthough interest in organizational learning has grown dramatically in recentyears, a general theory of organizational learning has remained elusive.Renewal of the overall enterprise as the underlying phenomenon of interest andorganization learning is identified as a principal means to this end. With thisperspective, a framework for the process of organizational learning is developed,presenting organizational learning as 4 processes - intuiting, interpreting,integrating, and institutionalizing - linking the individual, group, and organizationallevels.

CommentA very interesting learning model - unique in the way it links intuition andinstitutionalization. Although focused at the org level, the concepts seem readilyextensible into "societal learning," much more so than many org learning models.

Drazin, R. and L. Sandelands (1992). "Autogenesis: A perspectiveon the process of organizing." Organization Science 3(2):230.

AbstractThis paper presents a perspective on organizational theory called 'autogenesis'.This perspective has a long history in both the natural and social sciences, but issuggested particularly by recent developments in the field of self-organizingsystems. According to this perspective, complex social organization can be

62

explained in terms of the interplay of three distinct types of structure: (1) deepstructure, which consists of a generative grammar (rules) for organizing; (2)elemental structure, which is the manifest form taken by individual socialinteractions; and (3) observed structure, which is the supra-individual group ororganization as perceived by an observer of the system. The implications of thisperspective for expanding the scope of theory and research on socialorganizations in general, and the process of organizing in particular, arediscussed.

CommentA very abstract but thoughtful attempt to develop a perspective on organizationsthat allows us to think about organizational structures without reifying them. Hassome useful concepts for anyone interested in developing a connection betweenmicro-level actions and macro-level social structures.

Fisher, J.(1999). International networking: The role of southernNGOs. Organizational dimensions of global change: nolimits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J. E. Dutton.Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 210-234.

Abstract .Empirical look at developmentand current state of international NGO networkswith particular focus on the role of southern NGOs and their relationships withnorthern NGOs.

Comment

Foreman, K. (1999). "Evolving global structures and thechallenges facing international relief and developmentorganizations:' Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly28(4): 178.

AbstractMost current executives of the largest international relief and developmentorganizations (NGOs) expect their organizations to move toward more globalgovernance structures that incorporate fully vested partners from the north andsouth. This article seeks to present the potential opportunities and challenges oftransition to a global governance structure.

CommentThough focused exclusively on NGOs, a helpful addition to the globalgovernance (and collaboration) lit, because it offers some interesting specificmodels and makes good use of specific examples.

63

Frooman, J. (1999). "Stakeholder influence strategies." Academyof Management Review 24(2): 191.

AbstractWhen seeking to influence firm decision making, what type of influence strategiesdo stakeholders have available, and what determines which type thestakeholders choose to use? In this article, the resource dependence theory isused to investigate these 2 questions. It is proposed that th-e resourcerelationship (who is dependent on whom) determines which of the 4 types ofstrategies identified in this article will be used: direct withholding, direct usage,indirect withholding, or indirect usage.

CommentVery constrained and academic in tone, but a useful opening up of stakeholdertheory. The article looks at the relationships between organizations and theirstakeholders in a more complex and multi-dimensional way than much previousstakeholder lit, but still tends to overemphasize the rationally strategic at theexpense of the institutionally emergent. .

Gergen, K.J. (1999). Global organization and the potential forethical inspiration. Organizational dimensions of globalchange: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J.E. Dutton. cThousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 255­269.

AbstractArticle framing ethics (in this case global ethics) as relational. Suggests thatglobal organizations can "nurture the potential for ethical leadership" byunderstanding the socially constructed nature of the good. This approach allowsdeeper collaborative exploration of difficult ethical issues than typical, objectifiedviews of ethics (e.g., "pitting malignant expansionists against innocent ThirdWorld cultures.") Movement away from universal "principles and sanctions" andtoward dialogue and "ethically generative practice."

CommentGreat article that really casts a new light on so-called values-based organizationsand offers a much richer, more supple model - the "dialogic" organization.

Gray, B. (1999). The development of global environmental

64

regimes: Organizing in the absence of authority.Organizational dimensions of global change: no limits tocooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J. E. Dutton. ThousandOaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 185-209.

AbstractProblems in and approaches to global organizing for sustainable development.Outlines various structural/political/regulatory contexts inwhich globalenvironmental problems are situated and suggests alternative models of

_ governance includlnq: joint management regimes, globalpartnersbip approach,and global governance approach. Explores framing and.power challengesassociated with these approaches.

Comment

Hage, J. T. (1999). "Organizational innovation and organizationalchange....Annual Review of Sociology 25: 597-622.

AbstractThree ideas-a complex division of labor, an organic structure, and a high-riskstrategy-provoke consistent findings relative to organizational innovation. Ofthese three ideas, the complexity of the division of labor is most importantbecause it taps the organizational learning, problem-solving, and creativitycapacities of the organization. The importance of a complex division of labor hasbeen underappreciated because of the various ways in which it has beenmeasured, which in turn reflect the macroinstitutional arrangements of theeducational system within a society. These ideas can be extended to the study ofinterorganizational relationships and the theories of organizational change.Integrating these theories would provide a general organizational theory ofevolution within the context of knowledge societies.

CommentSolid, fairly recent review of the literature on organizational innovation, with a setof ambitious theoretical perspectives on why innovation should be more closelystudied and integrated intothe sociological lit.

Hardy, C. and N. Phillips (1998). "Strategies of engagement:Lessons from the critical examination of collaboration andconflict in interorganizational domain." OrganizationScience 9(2): 217-230.

AbstractMany writers advocate interorganizational collaboration as a solution to a range

65

of organizational and intersectoral problems. Accordingly, they often concentrateon its functional aspects. We argue that collaboration deserves a more criticalexamination, particularly when the interests of stakeholders conflict and thebalance of power between them is unequal. Using examples from a study of theUK refugee system, we argue that collaboration is only one of several possiblestrategies of engagement used by organizations as they try to manage theinterorganizationaldomain in which they operate. In this paper, we discuss foursuch strategies: collaboration, compliance, contention and contestation. Byexamining the stakeholders in the domainand asking who has formal authority,who controls key resources, and who is able to discursively manage legitimacy,researchers are in a stronger position to evaluate both the benefits and costs ofthese strategies and to differentiate more clearly between strategies that are trulycollaborative and strategies that are not. In other words, we hope to demonstratethat collaboration between organizations is not necessarily "good", conflict is notnecessarily "bad", and surface dynamics are not necessarily an accuraterepresentation of what is going on beneath.

CommentArgues that collaboration is just one org strategy for solving intersectoralproblems and that other "strategies of engagement" - compliance, contention,and contestation - may be more appropriate, depending upon power dynamics.Conflict is seen as an appropriate alternative to collaboration in cases wherepower inequality makes it difficult to challenge existing problem/successframeworks.

Hart, S. (1999). Corporations as agents of global sustainability:Beyond competitive strategy. Organizational dimensions ofglobal change: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperriderand J. E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications:346-361.

AbstractCall for corporations to move beyond "competitive strategy" balanced by socialimpact awareness and toward development of full-scale transformative visions ofnew, sustainable "sociotechnical systems." Emphasizes that this can only bedone collaboratively.

Comment

Kaczmarski, K. M. and D. L. Cooperrider (1999). Constructionistleadership in the global relational age: The case of themountain forum. Organizational dimensions of global

66

change: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J.E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 57-87.

Abstract"Constructionist Leadership" is a way to create flexible, productive, issue- orperspective-based global coalitions of extremely diverse organizations andindividuals by facilitating the collective "construction" of a core set of beliefs andmethods that can hold the org together. Key const. leadership principles:"appreciative approach to knowledge," "generative approach to language that isrich in metaphor and narrative form," "formation of 'out of control' organizationsthrough the web of inclusion." Contrasts this type of leadership with traditionaltypes: structural, entrepreneurial, intellectual. Note that constructionist leadershipis not necessarily associated with a leader.

Comment

Knowles, R. N. (2001). "Self-organizing leadership: A way ofseeing what is happening in organizations and a pathway tocoherence," Emergence 3(4): 112-127.

AbstractThis article introduces a new form of leadership called selforganizing leadership,which complements and supports strategic and operational leadership. It looks atorganizations from the complex adaptive systems (CAS) perspective and offers anovel way of seeing and understanding some of the self-organizing patterns andprocesses operating in organizations. I developed a number of new,transformative process models over a 12-13-year period that help us to see whatis happening in our organizations, and to make the changes we need to improveour effectiveness and competitive performance. Many writers who use CAStheory to try to understand what organizations are doing work from theperspective of standing outside the organization. They are acting on theorganization as if it is a thing to study, manipulate, and control. The workdescribed in this article was undertaken from the perspective of standing withinthe organization with people who are deeply engaged in conversations, together,clarifying who we are, and developing agreements about how we will behave andwork together, as well as addressing our important issues and doing somethingabout them. Stacey (2000, 2001) has written about the importance oftransformative processes and complex responsive processes. My work appearsto be highly aligned with Stacey's work, and presents a way to bring these ideasinto reality in organizations.

CommentOne of many articles looking at leadership/organizational principles from acomplexity perspective, but included here because the author worked for Dupont(and uses his experiences extensively in the article). A handful of useful concepts

67

(transformative patterns and processes as fractal; comments on Argyris'"management trap" which make one thing ofHolling, etc.), Also interesting in thatit uses a Process Enneagram, no doubt drawn from the approach developed atDupont.

Lewis, M. W. (2000). "Exploring paradox: Toward a morecomprehensive guide." Academy of Management Review25(4): 760.

Abstract"Paradox" appears increasingly in organization studies, often to describeconflicting demands, opposing perspectives, or seemingly illogical findings. Thisarticle helpsresearchers exploreparadoxes and contribute insights more in tunewith organizational complexity and ambiguity. A framework that clarifies thenature of paradoxical tensions, reinforcing cycles, and their management isdeveloped. Using this framework, studies are reviewed in which paradoxesspurred by change and plurality are investigated. Strategies for identifying andrepresenting paradox are outlined. Implications for research are addressed.

CommentOpens up the increasingly popular (but usually simplistic) concept of paradox inorg lit. The article serves as a handy launching point for a deeper understandingof paradox - a theme that came up consistently during the Social Innovation thinktank.

Mir, R. A., M. B. Calas, et al, (1999). Global technoscapes andsilent voices: Challenges to theorizing global cooperation.Organizational dimensions of global change: no limits tocooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J. E. Dutton. ThousandOaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 270-290.

AbstractWarning about the dark side of cooperation and collaboration." Reviews the waysin which "cooperation" has been a screen for social engineering. Interestingcomparison of language and themes from different decades showing eeriesimilarities with new language ofglobal collaboration. Call forresearchers andpractitioners to be particularly reflexive and aware of this danqer.

Comment

68

Rohrschneider, R. and R. Dalton (2002). "A global network?Transnational cooperation among environmental groups."Journal of Politics 64(2): 510-533.

AbstractA rich literature theorizes about the development of transnational networksamong social movements that may signal the emergence of a new global civilsociety. This article presents empirical results from an international survey ofenvironmental groups. We find evidence of a relatively dense network ofinternational action by green groups, anda substantial resource transfer fromgreen groups in the OEeD nations to those in the developing world. At the sametime, the patterns of exchange within this network raise questions about the moreoptimistic claims of the global civil society literature because participation in thistransnational network is largely an extension of the factors that encouragedomestic political action. ln addition, power inequalities and value differencesthat exist within this international environmental network may limit transnationalcooperation among environmental groups.

CommentArticle that calls into question paradigms of "global society" that rely on globally­driven patterns for int'l org collaboration. In a study of environmental NGOs, findsthat while there are rich networks of int'l collaboration and communication, thesenetworks seem to be driven by the same factors that drive domestic activism(connection to national government, budget size, group ideology) rather than byglobal context factors (involvement in international community, extent ofdemocracy).

Rubenstein, D. and R. W. Woodman (1984). "Spiderman and theBurma Raiders: Collateral organization theory in action."Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 20(1): 1.

AbstractA collateral organization is designed to co-exist parallel with the formalorganization on a relatively permanent basis. Proponents contend that collateralorganizations prove especially valuable in supplementing the formal organizationbecause they provide (1) a means for identifying, analyzing, and mastering iII­structured problems and (2) an arena for participation. Advocates concede,however, that the parallel arrangement of formal and collateral organizationscreate a complexity that may confuse participants and cause role problems.

To the contrary, this article argues that the proclaimed "advantages" of collateralorganizations are problematic while their "problems" actually provide theparamount advantage. Despite claims by proponents, a collateral organization is(1) not inherently a proficient medium for solving - or even seeing - ill-structured.problems, and (2) no less prone to abuse of participation than other participatoryforms. Yet collateral organizations offer the invaluable advantage of complex role

69

sets - t.e., interaction opportunities with a large number of very different people.Complex role sets may enhance mastery of the environment for both individualsand organizations.

Comment.A reversal of previous lit on "collateral organization" and an interesting·piece foranyone trying to get a handle on the themes and dynamics surrounding"informal" organizations (a critical topic for social innovation - indeed forinnovation in general - since innovation often seems to arise out of loose,informal or hybrid social/org structures).

Swanson, D. L. (1999). "Toward an integrative theory of businessandsociety: A research strategy for corporate socialperformance:' Academy of Management Review 24(3): 506.

AbstractThe lack of integration of normative and descriptive approaches to business andsociety and the problems posed for coherent theory development are addressed.Corporate social performance topics are reformulated according to a researchstrategy aimed at moving inquiry beyond problems of integration. The potentialfor a normative-descriptive unification is then demonstrated, and this is followedwith implications for future research.

CommentA bit dry, but offers a decent overview andre-conceptualization of the lit oncorporate social responsibility.

Tenkasi, R. V. and S. A. Mohrman (1999). Global change ascontextual collaborative knowledge creation.Organizational dimensions of global change: no limits tocooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J. E. Dutton. ThousandOaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 114-136.

AbstractGlobal change and "collaborative knowledge." Creation and sharing ofknowledge via interaction. Knowledge as subjective, contextual, incomplete. (Asopposed to typical Western view of knowledge as objective, universal, andcomplete.) Examples of projects that succeeded or failed largely based on whichknowledge perspective they were operating from. Particular emphasis onsuccessful global change efforts developing knowledge collaboratively with localorgs/people rather than attempting simply to transmit knowledge.

Comment

70

Vaughan, D. (1999). "The dark side of organizations: Mistake,misconduct, and disaster:' Annual Review of Sociology 25:271·305.

AbstractIn keeping with traditional sociological concerns about order and disorder, thisessay addresses the dark side of organizations. To build atheoretical basis forthe dark side as an integrated field of study, I review four literatures in order tomake core ideas of each available to specialists in the others. Using.aSimmelian-based case comparison method of analogical theorizing, I firstconsider sociological constructs that identify both the generic social form and thegeneric origin of routine nonconformity: how things go wrong in sociallyorganized settings. Then I examine three types of routine nonconformity withadverse outcomes that harm the public: mistake, misconduct, and disasterproduced in and by organizations. Searching for analogies and differences, I findthat in common, routine nonconformity, mistake, misconduct, and disaster aresystematically produced by the interconnection between environment,organizations, cognition, and choice. These patterns amplify what is known aboutsocial structure and have implications for theory, research, and policy.

CommentIt's easy to focus on organizational actors (whether they be businesses, NGOs,gov't agencies, etc.) when thinking about social innovation. This article is athought-provoking review of the literature on the negative outcomes associatednot with specific organizations but with the organizational form in general.

Weick, K. E. (1998). "Improvisation as a mindset fororganizational analysis:' Organization Science 9(5): 543.

AbstractThe emphasis in organization theory on order and control often handicapstheorists when they want to understand the processes of creativity andinnovation. Symptoms of the handicap are discussions of innovation that thatinclude the undifferentiated use of concepts like flexibility, risk, and novelty;forced either-or distinctions between exploration and exploitation; focus onactivities such as planning, visioning, and strategizing as sites whereimprovements are converted into intentions that await implementation; andreliance on routine, reliability, repetition, automatic processing, and memory asthe glue that holds organizations in place. Since the term "organization" itselfdenotes orderly arrangements for cooperation, it is not surprising thatmechanisms for rearranging these orders in the interest of adaptation, have notbeen developed as fully. (See Eisenberg (1990) for an important exception.) That

71

liability can be corrected ifwe learn how to talk about the process ofimprovisation.

CommentGreat intro essay to special OS issue on improv in organizations. Opens up theconcept of improv by exploring the relationship between intuition,practice, andtechnique. Concepts would be very useful vls-a-vis thinking about emergentleadership. Last bit on "failure" is reminiscent of Holling's safe-fail.

Weick,K. E. (1999).Sensemaking as an organizational dimensionof global change. Organizational dimensions of global

. change : no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J.E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 39-56.

AbstractIn global change context explores relationship between org design/form,sensemaking, and outcomes, Seven properties of sensemaking: social context,personal identity, retrospect, salient cues, ongoing projects, plausibility,enactment. Relates org characteristics to sensemaking properties (e.g., forSocial Context - Does org form encourage conversation?) and maps these ontohealthy (successful) and unhealthy (problematic) outcomes.

Comment

Weick, K. E. and F. Westley (1996). Organizational learning:Affirming an oxymoron. Handbook of organization studies.S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. Nord, Sage: 440-458.

AbstractReview of organizational learning literature and theory development.

Comment

Westley, F. (1999). "Not on our watch"": The biodiversity crisis andglobal collaboration response. Organizational dimensions ofglobal change : no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperriderand J. E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications:88-113.

AbstractFrances' piece on what "motivates and enables" individuals to work on

72

overwhelming and insidious ecological problems with focus on aparticular kind ofsocial organization - global, loosely structured, value-driven, ongoing, with acore sustaining group - that nurtures this motivation and coordinates resultingefforts. Story of Uly Seal and CBSG.

Comment

Westley, F. and H. Vredenburg (1997). "Interorganizationalcollaboration and the preservation of global biodiversity:"Organization Science 8(4)= 381·403.

AbstractUsing grounded theory development research methods, the authors examinecollaborative processes in the global biodiversity preservation domain. Theprocesses examined are those initiated and convened by a subgroup of theSwiss-based International Union for the Conservation of Nature known as theConservation Breeding Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission.The global collaborative initiatives of the group suggest that extant theory on

. collaboration may not adequately explain collaborative processes in so complexa domain as global biodiversity preservation. Specifically, the authors suggestthat in highly complex domains, effective structuring of collaborative initiativesmay take different forms. Propositions about structuring of collaborations incomplex domains are derived.

CommentGreat article that reframes the way we think about collaborative organizations inhighly complex or global contexts. Use of CBSG case study to developpropositions about structuring of collaborations in complex domains. Argues thatclassical collaboration theory (e.g., Trist) based on eventual centralization arounda "referent org" may not apply in highly complex contexts atthe supra­organizational level. At this level. integration and structuring may be achieved bythe "creation of shared thought structures" rather than by the development ofmore formal, enclosed collaborative forms. Also, the entrepreneur-visionary maycontinue to maintain a strong personal presence rather than eventually givingway to the creation of an impersonal referent org. Certain collaborative patternsmay even inform the problem domain independent of the specificinitiative/collaboration that gave birth to the them. "Our case study suggests, inshort, that Seal's attempt to design a self-amplifying network, based onknowlsdqe, structured by software, and decentralized in resources may be moreimportant to domain transformation than the ultimate survival of CBSG."

Zald, M. N. (1999). Transnational and international social

73

movements in a globalizing world: Creating culture,creating conflict. Organizational dimensions of globalchange: no limits to cooperation. D. L. Cooperrider and J.E. Dutton. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications: 168­184.

AbstractExamines paradox that cooperative global change efforts also lead to large-scaleconflicts by bringing diverse groups and cultures into unprecedented contact.Writes largely from a social movements perspective(interests/negotiations/grievances, etc.).

Comment

Social EntrepreneurshipBryer, D. and J. Magrath (1999). "New dimensions of global

advocacy." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28(4):168.

AbstractThis article argues that globalization impels NGOs to engage further in advocacywork, and that globalization provides important new opportunities as well assignificant challenges. In particular NGOs both north and south will have to formstrategic alliances. The article uses OxfarnGls's history of advocacy to examineoptions open to NGOs and to suggest future directions and possible criteria foreffective advocacy.

CommentVery readable take on the changing nature of advocacy - through the eyes ofOxfam. Frames NGO advocacy as moving well beyond lobbying into a muchmore complex array of strategies, initiatives and relationships.

Dees, J. G. (1998). "The meaning of "social entrepreneurship"."AbstractConceptual overview of social entrepreneur as change agent in social sector. SEworks by "adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just privatevalue); recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunitiesto serve thatmission; engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, andlearning; acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand; andexhibiting a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served andfor the outcomes created."

74

CommentShort, practitioner-oriented piece that is starting to be widely used. Sectorallyfocused. Not overwhelmingly useful forsocial innovation.

Dichter, T. W.(1999). "Globalization and its effects on NGOs:Efflorescence or a blurring of roles and relevance?"Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28(4): 38.

AbstractThis article begins by describing attributes of the NGO sector, including itsphenomenal growth, its new legitimacy and reputation; and national and regionaldifferences among NGOs. It then discusses the tensions, tradeoffs, trends, andstrategies posed by globalization as the political economy in which NGOsoperate is changed. It notes that in the global marketplace of altruism, NGOs riskseeing the positive promise of NGO globalization far outweighed by the dangersof commodification of their work.

CommentGood, broad, quick overview of the rise of the NGO. Does a nice job of framingcurrent issues around the role of NGOs, particularly their increasing adoption ofmarket-like language and concepts moving them ever closer to the for-profit sideof the organizational spectrum.

Egri, C. P. and S. Herman (1999). "Leadership in the NorthAmerican environmental sector: Values, leadership styles,and contexts of environmental leaders and theirorganizations." Academy of Management Journal 43(4):571.

AbstractInterview and questionnaire data from 73 leaders on nonprofit environmentalistand for-profit environmental product and service organizations showed that theseleaders' personal values were more ecocentric, open to change, and self­transcendent than those of managers in other types of organizations. Theseleaders also acted as "master managers," performing both transformational andtransactional leadership behaviors. As hypothesized, nonprofit environmentalistorganizations were highly receptive contexts for transformational leadership,whereas for-profit environmental organizations were at least moderatelyreceptive in this regard. We used these findings to develop a preliminary modelof environmental leadership.

Comment

75

Somewhat mechanical take on the characteristics of leaders in the environmentalsector.

Lindenberg, M. (1999). "Declining state capacity,voluntarism,and the globalization of the not-for-profit sector." Nonprofitand Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28(4): 147.

AbstractSince the 1970s, a profound shift has taken place in the roles of the public,private, and not-for-profit sectors. In the wake offiscal crisis, ideological attacks,and privatization, the scope and capacity of governments has declined.

CommentConcise historical and structural overview of the global role played by NGOs.

Mort, G. S., J. Weerawardena, et al, (2003). "Socialentrepreneurship: Towards conceptualization."International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary SectorMarketing 8(1): 76.

AbstractThe marketing in strategy dialogue and the emerging marketing/entrepreneurshipinterface paradigm stress the need for marketers to research entrepreneurship.Social entrepreneurship, the entrepreneurship leading to the establishment ofnew social enterprises and the continued innovation in existing ones, is muchdiscussed but little understood and, given the increasing importance of suchorganizations, should be addressed. This paper conceptualizes socialentrepreneurship asa multidimensional construct involving the expression ofentrepreneurially virtuous behavior to achieve the social mission, a coherentunity of purpose and action in the face of moral complexity, the ability torecognize social value-creating opportunities and key decision-makingcharacteristics of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking. The paperdiscusses implications for policy and practice, and concludes with aconsideration of theoretical issues and directions for future research.

CommentAttempt to link entrepreneurship lit to social sector development. Very little depthor insight. Most of the conclusions are self-evident.

Offenheiser, R., S. Holcombe, et al. (1999). "Grappling with

76

globalization,partnership, and learning: A look insideOxfam America.II Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly28(4): 121.

AbstractThis article explores some of the current challenges facing Oxfam America, aBoston based international development and relief organization. Lookingoutward, Oxfam America isfaced with an increasingly competitive privatefund raising market, tensions and opportunities posed by its affiliation with theglobal Oxfam International structure, the need to revitalize its partnershipconcept, unprecedented opportunities to link local realities and global policyformulation through advocacy, and the need to respond to changingprogramming contexts with new funding arrangements and strategic alliances.

CommentOK case study of Oxfam - some interesting tidbits, but completely focused onorganizational development/strategy perspective (as opposed to social changeperspective).

Pastakia, A. (1998). "Grassrootsecopreneurs: Change agents fora sustainable society.II Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement 11 (2): 157.

AbstractBusiness entrepreneurs contribute tosocio-economic development and changethrough their commercial enterprises. Enterprising individuals seeking to changesociety or address social issues through an organized initiative have often beenreferred to as social entrepreneurs. The past decade has witnessed theemergence of a new breed of eco-conscious change agents who may be calledecological entrepreneurs (ecopreneurs for short). This paper focuses on thestrategies developed by six grassrootsecopreneurs drawn from two Indianstates. Gujarat and Maharashtra, in the field of alternative agriculture. The casesin this sample consist of individuals who try to diffuse innovations developed bythemselves. The paper also explains the conceptual differences between twotypes of ecopreneurs and provides the theoretical sampling frame; it discussesthe research objectives and methodology and presents the ecopreneurs and theirefforts at diffusing their eco-friendly ideas and innovations. Finally, the paperfocuses on two important barriers to ecopreneurship, describes the strategiesused to overcome these barriers and draws conclusions.

CommentSet of mini-cases studies. Some helpful ethnographic detail, some usefulstrategic concepts, but not much theory. Article does give one a sense that thereare many kinds of strategies for principle/product diffusion that can work. Also thedistinction between the product-focused entrepreneurs and the practice/idea-

.77

focused entrepreneurs is handy.

Sagawa, S. and E.Segal (2000). "Common interest, commongood: Creating value through business and social sectorpartnerships." California Management Review 42(2): 105­122.

AbstractBusiness firms and non-profit organizations are increasingly collaborating. Suchcollaborations promise substantial mutual benefits as business firms realize theextent to which their profits depend on a healthy social environment and socialentrepreneurs begin to appreciate how applying business principJes can enablethem to fulfill their social missions more effectively. Nevertheless, for the benefitsof cross-sector partnerships to be achieved, each partner must have a realisticunderstanding of both the challenges and potential pitfalls of their relationship.

CommentKind of a callow view, but probably representative of the way many firms viewsuch relationships. Lots of snappy biz jargon.

Thompson, J., G. Alvy, et al. (2000). "Social entrepreneurship - anew look at the people and the potential." ManagementDecision 38(5): 328-338.

AbstractMuch has been written about entrepreneurship, mainly as a driver of capitalismand economic activity. However, when economic decline has adversely affectedlocal communities, these communities are likely to need both economic andsocial regeneration. As well as business entrepreneurs, we need socialentrepreneurs, people who realize where there is an opportunity to satisfy someunmet need that the state welfare system will not or cannot meet, and whogather the necessary resources and use these to "make a difference." Thompsonet al consider the crucial role of private sector social entrepreneurship in thecontext of a state welfare system stretched beyond its means. They define socialentrepreneurship, recount a number of key points from relevant researchprojects, reflect upon current developments and initiatives, describe a number ofcases and use these to draw a set of tentative conclusions about socialentrepreneurs and social entrepreneurship in the context of the currentgovernment's aim of fostering rapid growth in the sector. They conclude thatwhile such growth is highly desirable, a number of hurdles have to be overcome.

CommentAnecdotal look at social entrepreneurship in England. Positions social sector as

78

filling gaps in the state welfare system. Discusses relationships between varioussectors and sketches out the character of the "social entrepreneur." No depth.

Waddock, S.A~ and J. E. Post (1991). "Social entrepreneurs andcatalytic change:'Public Administration Review 51 (5): 393.

AbstractThe 3 central characteristics of leadership necessary for social entrepreneursare: 1. The social problem is characterized by extreme complexity, which the-

.social entrepreneur is somehow able to bound into a vision that has the potentialto reshape public attitudes when implemented. 2. Social entrepreneurs areindividuals with significant personal credibility, which they use to tap critical

-resources and actually build the necessary network of participating organizations.3. The social entrepreneur generates followers' commitment to the project byframing it in terms of important social values, rather than purely economic terms,which results in a sense of collective purpose among the social entrepreneur andthose who join the effort. The goals of catalytic social action tend to focus onlong-term change through leveraging the impact that the effort has through themedia rather than direct action.

CommentCase study look at three social entrepreneurs that evokes some of the kinds ofleadership themes that came up during Social Innovation Initiative Discussions.Helpful reinforcement, but nothing earth-shaking.

InnovationBrown, J. S. and P. Duguid (1991). "Organizational learning and

communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working,learning and innovation:' Organization Science 1 (4): 40-57.

AbstractRecent ethnographic studies of workplace practices indicate that the wayspeople actually work usually differ fundamentally from the ways organizationsdescribe that work in manuals, training programs, organizational charts, and jobdescriptions. Nevertheless, organizations tend to relyon the latter in theirattempts to understand and improve work practice. We examine one such study.We then relate its conclusions to compatible investigations of learning and ofinnovation to argue that conventional descriptions of jobs mask not only the wayspeople work, but also significant learning and innovation generated in theinformal communities-of-practice in which they work. By reassessing work,learning, and innovation in the context of actual communities and actualpractices, we suggest that the connections between these three become

79

apparent. With a unified view of working, learning, and innovating, it should bepossible to reconceive of and redesign organizations to improve all three.

CommentClassic article outlining communities-of-practice concept. Very organizationallyfocused, but some of the themes and ideas could be extended (with a little bit ofingenuity and elbow grease) to social change practices.

Dougherty, D. (1992). "Interpretive barriers to successful productinnovation in large firms." Organization Science 3(2): 179­202.

AbstractThe development of commercially viable new.products requires thattechnological and market possibilities are linked effectively in the product'sdesign. Innovators in large firms have persistent problems with such linking,however. This research examines these problems by focusing on the sharedinterpretive schemes people use to make sense of product innovation. Twointerpretive schemes are found to inhibit development of technology-marketknowledge: departmental thought worlds and organizational product routines.The paper describes in some depth differences among the thought worlds whichkeep innovators from synthesizing their expertise. The paper also details howorganizational routines exacerbate problems with learning, and how successfulinnovators overcome both interpretive barriers. The main implication of the studyis that to improve innovation in large firms it is necessary todeal explicitly withthe interpretive barriers described here. Suggestions for practice and researchare offered.

CommentWould be interesting to develop the social innovation analogues to "departmentalthought worlds and organizational product routines;" Paper has some helpfulconcepts in terms of thinking about structural and interpretive inhibitors ofinnovation.

Hargadon, A. B. and Y. Douglas (2001). "When innovations meetinstitutions: Edison and the design of the electric light."Administrative Science Quarterly 46(3): 476.

AbstractThis paper considers the role of design, as the emergent arrangement ofconcrete details that embodies a new idea, in mediating between innovations andestablished institutional fields as entrepreneurs attempt to introduce change.Analysis of Thomas Edison's system of electric lighting offers insights into how

80

the grounded details of an innovation's design shape its acceptance and ultimateimpact. The notion of robust design is introduced to explain how Edison's designstrategy enabled his organization to gain acceptance for an innovation that wouldultimately displace the existing institutions of the gas industry. This analysishighlights the value of robust design strategies in innovationefforts,including thephonograph, the online service provider, and the digital video recorder.

CommentAnother good article whose concepts could be extended into social innovation.Unusually clever attention (for basins innovation focused articles) is paidto bothintention/design and emergencelinstitutionalization.

Henderson, R. M. and K. B. Clark (1990). "Architecturalinnovation: The reconfiguration of existing producttechnologies and the failure of established firms."Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 9·30.

AbstractThis paper demonstrates that the traditional categorization of innovation as eitherincremental or radical is incomplete and potentially misleading and does notaccount for the sometimes disastrous effects on industry incumbents of

. seemingly minor improvements in technological products. We examine suchinnovations more closely and, distinguishing between the components of aproduct and the ways they are integrated into the system that is the product"architecture," define them as innovations that change the architecture of aproduct without changing its components. We show that architectural innovationsdestroy the usefulness of the architectural knowledge of established firms,andthat since architectural knowledge tends to become embedded in the structureand information-processing procedures of established organizations, thisdestruction is difficult for firms to recognize and hard to correct. Architecturalinnovation therefore presents established organizations with subtle challengesthat may have significant competitive implications. We illustrate the concept'sexplanatory force through an empirical study of the semiconductorphotolithographic alignment equipment industry, which has experienced anumber of architectural innovations.

CommentSimilar in conceptualization to Christiansen, and like Christensen, useful forsocial innovators who might be too apt to assume that dramatic change alwayslooks dramatic. There is presumably a social architecture that is analogous toHenderson's organizational and product architectures and that can be disruptedby similarly small-seeming changes.

81

Leonard-Barton, .D. (1992). "Core capabilities and core rigidities:A paradox in managing new product development.".Strategic Management JoumaI13(Speciallssue): 111-126.

AbstractThis paper examines the nature of the core.capabilities ofa firm, focusing inparticular on their interaction with new product and process developmentprojects. Two new concepts about core capabilities are explored here. First,

.while core capabilities are traditionally treated as clusters of distinct technicalsystems, skills, and managerial systems, these dlrnenslons ofcapabilities aredeeply rooted in values, which constitute an often overlooked but critical fourthdimension. Second, traditional core capabilities have a down side that inhibits

.innovation, here called Gore rigidities. Managers of new product and processdevelopment projects thus face a paradox: how to take advantage of corecapabilities without being hampered by their dysfunctional flip side. Such projectsplay an important role in emerging strategies by highlighting the need for changeand leading the way. Twenty case studies of new product and processdevelopment projects in five firms provide illustrative data.

CommentExamination/refinement of Hamel and Prahalad's concept of "core competencies"wrt innovation. Explores "symbiotic relationship" between core capabilities andinnovation projects. Notes that these capabilities can also be seen as rigiditiesand thus can inhibit as well as enable innovation. Nothing earth shattering interms of its usefulness for social innovation.

March,J~ G. (1976). Technology of foolishness. Ambiguity andchoice in organizations. J. G. March and J. P. Olsen.Cambridge, Harvard University Press: 443-451.

AbstractClassic article championing "playfulness" (foolishness, intuition, exploration,improvisation) as "an instrument of intelligence" and innovation. .

Comment

Nonaka, I. D. (1994). "A dynamic theory of organizationalknowledge creation." Organization Science 5(1): 14.

AbstractThis paper proposes a paradigm for managing the dynamic aspects oforganizational knowledge creating processes. Its central theme is thatorganizational knowledge is created through a continuous dialogue between tacitand explicit knowledge. The nature of this dialogue is examined and four patterns

82

of interaction involving tacit and explicit knowledge are identified. It is argued thatwhile new knowledge is developed by individuals, organizations play a criticalrole in articulating and amplifying that knowledge. A theoretical framework isdeveloped which provides an analytical perspective on the constituentdimensions of knowledge creation. This framework is then applied in twooperational models for facilitating the dynamic creation of appropriateorganizational knowledge.

CommentGreat, seminal article outlining Nonaka's theory of knowledge creation. One ofthe early explorations of interactions between tacit and explicit knowledge. Offersa clear conceptualization of the role that organizations play in innovation.

Van den Bulte, C. and G. L. Lilien (2001). "Medical innovationrevisited: Social contagion versus marketing effort."American Journal of Sociology 106(5): 1409-35.

AbstractThis article shows that Medical Innovation the landmark study by Coleman, Katz,and Menzel and several subsequent studies analyzing the diffusion of the drugtetracycline have confounded social contagion with marketing effects. The articledescribes the medical community's understanding of tetracycline and how thedrug was marketed. This situational analysis finds no reasons to expect socialcontagion; instead, aggressive marketing efforts may have played an importantrole. The Medical Innovation data set is reanalyzed and supplemented with newlycollected advertising data. When marketing efforts are controlled for, contagioneffects disappear. The article underscores the importance of controlling forpotential confounds when studying the role of social contagion in innovationdiffusion.

CommentThere. may be a similar issue in terms of confounding contagion and "marketing"(whether from NGOs or social movements or political institutions or even marketinstitutions) wrt social innovation. Article suggests that marketing may playamore prominent role in the diffusion of innovations than is often assumed.

Wejnert, B. (2002). "Integrating models of diffusion ofinnovations: A conceptual framework." Annual Review ofSociology 28: 297-326.

AbstractThis chapter provides a conceptual framework for integrating the array ofvariables defined in diffusion research to explicate their influence on an actor's

83

decision to adopt an innovation. The framework groups the variables into threemajor components. The first component includes characteristics of the innovationitself, within which two sets of variables are defined concerning public versusprivate consequences and benefits versus costs of adoption. A secondcomponent involves the characteristics of innovators (actors) that influence theprobability of adoption of an innovation. Within this component six sets ofvariables concern societal entity of innovators (either people, organizations,states, etc.), familiarity with the innovation, status characteristics, socioeconomiccharacteristics, position in social networks, and.personal. qualities. The thirdcomponent involves characteristics of the environmental context that modulatediffusion via structural characteristics of the modern world. These lattercharacteristics incorporate four sets of variables: geographical settings, societalculture, political conditions, and global uniformity. The concluding analysis.highligl]ts the need in diffusion research to incorporate more fully (a) the

. interactive character of diffusion variables, (b) the gating function of diffusionvariables, and (c) effects of an actor's characteristics on the temporalrate ofdiffusion.

CommentTries to be broad by coming up with lots of variables and formal relationship

- hypotheses rather than by developing grounded synthesis of empirical literature.Not likely to be too useful for action oriented social innovation researchers.

Social Capital

Becker,· C. D. (2002)~ "Grassroots to grassroots: Why forestpreservation was rapid at LomaAlta, Ecuador'" WorldDevelopment 31(1): 163-176.

AbstractWhat social arrangements stop deforestation? This paper chronicles thesociological factors underlying the rapid establishment, in 14 months; of acommunity-owned protected forest in Ecuador. Methods developed by theInternational Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) research programprovide a stakeholder analysis related to trends in deforestation. Interviews,community meetings, and informal discussions provide data on attitudes of localpeople during and after establishment of the forest preserve. Knowledge andresources external to the community motivated local people to preserve a cloudforest, but local institutions and communal land tenurewere critical for the rapidestablishment of the protected area. .

CommentIntriguing little case study exploring the dynamics of decentralized eco­development. The relationship.between outside NGO expertise and the localcommunity social capital infrastructure might be useful in thinking about other

84

types of social innovation efforts.

Brown, L. D. andD.Ashman (1996). "Participation, social capital, .and intersectoral problem solving: African and Asiancases:' World Development 24(9):1467-1479.

AbstractCooperation in policy/program implementation between state andnongovernmental-actors can sometimes solve intractable development problems,but such cooperation must span gaps in culture, power, resources, andperspective. This article provides a comparative analysis of 13 cases ofintersectoral cooperation among public agencies, nongovernmentalorganizations, grassrootsgroups, and international donors. Theanalysis revealstwo successful implementation patterns: nongovernment organization (NGO)­mediated cooperation and grassroots-centered cooperation. Different forms ofsocial capital are central to the two patterns. Indigenous NGOs with credibilityacross sectors are critical to the former, while grassroots organizations are vitalto the latter. Participatory decision-making and mutual influence are essential to

- grassroots~centered cooperation, but less so for NGO-mediated collaboration.

CommentNotable for its breadth (13 case studies). Opens up the concept of social capitalto include different types of patterns and relates these patterns to the success (orlack thereof) of relatively large collaborative development efforts. A nice additionto the lit focused on understanding the relationship between NGO actors,governments, and local social capital.

Buchman, C.and E.Hannum (2001). "Education and stratificationin developing countries: A review of theories and research."Annual Review of Sociology 27: 77-102.

AbstractThis review examines research on education and inequality in developingregions. In tracing the progress of this field of inquiry, it focuses on empiricalstudies of educational inequality in four broad areas: macro-structural forcesshaping education and stratification; the relationship between family backgroundand educational outcomes; school effects; and education's impact on economicand social mobility. It assesses the contributions of research in Africa, Asia, andLatin America to the general study of education and social stratification and thetheoretical leverage gained from examining stratification processes in developingregions of the world. Finally, the review discusses recent developments that holdpromise for addressing the.knowledge gaps that remain; these include utilizingrelatively new data sources and methods in comparative, cross-national studies

85

and greatercollaboration between researchers who.study strikingly similarquestions but remain segregated due to their focus on either industrialized ordeveloping societies.

CommentBroad review of the lit on the relationship between educational systems andsocial structure vis-a-vis class stratification. Helpful for anyone trying to unpackgov't, technical,cultural, and social capital dynamics.

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Social Capital. Foundations of SocialTheory, Belknap Press: 300-321.

~~ct. . .Classic statement of social capital as a contrasting perspective toindividLially­based economic theories. Unlike financial, physical, and human capital, SC is notatomistic. SC adheres in relationship patterns and mayor may not betransferable, depending on context. Article explores nature and role of SC andposits various ways to create and/or destroy it.

Comment

Curtis~ J. E., D. E.Baer, et al. (2001). "Nations of joiners:Explaining voluntary association membership in democraticsocieties." American Sociological Review 66(6): 783.

AbstractLevels of voluntary association membership for 33 democratic countries arecompared using data from surveys of nationally representative samples of adultsfrom the 1990s. Four explanations of national differences in associationinvolvement are identified and tested: economic development, religiouscomposition, type of polity, and years of continuous democracy.

CommentHandy empirical look at some of the macro social features associated withsignificant participation in voluntary orgs. Nothing to surprising (e.g., being along-standing democracy helps), but a useful reminder of the degree to whichhistorical macro patterns affect avenues for social innovation.

Eckstein, S. (2001). "Community as gift-giving: Collectivist rootsof volunteerism." American Sociological Review 66(6): 829.

Abstract

86

.It is widely believed that the typical volunteer is rniddle-aqed and middle-classand that volunteerism is rooted in American cultural individualism.Undocumented and unexplored are collectivistic roots of giving, which may havea different social base than individualistic-grounded volunteerism.

CommentConceptual antidote to most volunteer/participation strategies which focus onrecruiting individuals as individuals. Small, micro case study without any hint ofdramatic social innovation, but the pattern of communal participation/giving isprovocative and might be useful when thinking about larger scale advocacymovements.

Evans, P. (1996). "Government action, social capital anddevelopment: Reviewing the evidence on synergy.II WorldDevelopment 24(6): 1119-1132.

AbstractInstead ofassuming a zero-sum relationship between government involvementand private cooperative efforts, the five-preceding articles argue for the possibilityof "state-society synergy," that active government and mobilized communitiescan enhance each others' developmental efforts. This article draws on thesearticles to explore the forms and sources of state-society synergy. I argue thatsynergy usually combines complementarity with embeddedness and is mosteasily fostered in societies characterized byegalitarian social structures androbust, coherent state bureaucracies. I also argue, however, that synergy isconstructable, even in the more adverse circumstances typical of Third Worldcountries.

CommentOne of the better looks at the different ways of understanding the relationshipbetween government structures/policies and the kinds of social capital that leadto local, private, community initiatives. Unpacks the (not too voluminous) lltandoffers a handful of rich perspectives.

Gieryn, T. F. (2000). "A space for place in sociology'" AnnualReview of Sociology 26: 463-496.

AbstractSociological studies sensitive to the issue of place are rarely labeled thus, and atthe same time there are far too many of them to fit in this review. It may be agood thing that this research is seldom gathered up as a "sociology of place," forthat could ghettoize the subject as something of interest only to geographers,architects, or environmental historians. The point of this review is to indicate that

87

sociologists have a stake in placeno matter what they analyze, or how: Theworks cited below emplace inequality, difference, power, politics, interaction,community, social movements, deviance, crime, life course, science, identity,memory, history. After a prologue of definitions and methodological ruminations, Iask: How do places come to be the way they are, and how do places matter forsocial practices and historical change?

. CommentWell-written essay/review taking a deep and provocative look at the various waysthat "place" is treated in sociological literature. Helpful for anyone seeking to godeeper into the globalization vs. place dichotomy present in much of thedevelopment and social movement literature.

Gille, Z. and S. 0 Riain (2002). "Global Ethnography'" AnnualReview of Sociology 28: 271-295.

Abstract :Globalization poses a challenge to existing social scientific methods of inquiryand units of analysis by destabilizing the embeddedness of social relations inparticular communities and places. Ethnographic sites are globalized by meansofvarious external connections across multiple spatial scales and porous andcontested boundaries. Global ethnographers must begin their analysis byseeking out "placemaking projects" that seek to define new kinds of places, withnew definitions of social relations and their boundaries. Existing ethnographicstudies of global processes tend to cluster under one of three slices of .globalization-global forces, connections, or imaginations-each defined by adifferent kind of place-making project. The extension of the site in time and spaceposes practical and conceptual problems for ethnographers, but also politicalones. Nonetheless, by locating themselves firmly within the time and space ofsocial actors "living the global," ethnographers can reveal how global processesare collectively and politically constructed, demonstrating the variety of ways in ­which globalization is grounded in the local.

CommentAnother good article exploring place wrt social capital - this time from primarily amethodological perspective. Looks at different ways sociologists (particularlyethnographers) are (or could be) dealing with globalization issues and thetransformation of once geographically coherent places. Focused on researchissues, but with a lot to say about the modern nature of place in general.

McElroy, M. W. (2002). "Social innovation capital,' ,Journal ofIntellectual Capital 3(1): 30-39.

88

AbstractCurrent conceptions of how to measure and manage intellectual capital (IC)suffer from a failure to take "social capital" rigorously into account. This is ashortcoming of current thinking in the IC arena. Of particular concern is theabsence of "social innovation capital" (SIC) from the scope of leading ICschemes. SIC, the collective capacity of a firm to innovate; is arguably the mostvaluable form of IC because it underlies a firm's fundamental capacity to learn,innovate, and adapt. Using one leading IC scheme as a basis for analysis(Skandia's), the absence of social capital, and SIC in particular, is highlighted,along with a description of what Skandia's taxonomy would look like if it were totake social capital fully into account. Finally, recommendations are offered onhow managers can build and manage SIC, thereby enhancing theirorganizations' capacities to learn, innovate, and adapt in the marketplace.

CommentOrg/biz focused account of the importance of internal social capital wrtinnovation. Contrasts this perspective with the.usual "intellectual capital"perspective, which focuses primarily on the individual and on supportinfrastructure. "Social intellectual capital" on the other hand is a self-organizingnetwork - a "particular archetypical social pattern which has as its aim the .production, diffusion and application of new knowledge by, and for, anorganization." Very similar to Brown's "Communities of Practice."

McPherson, M., L. Smith-Lovin, et al. (2001). "Birds ofa feather:Homophily in social networks:' Annual Review of Sociology27: 415-444.

AbstractSimilarity breeds connection. This principle-the homophily principle-structuresnetwork ties of every type, including marriage, friendship, work, advice, support,information transfer, exchange, comembership, and other types of relationship.The result is that people's personal networks are homogeneous with regard tomany sociodemographic, behavioral, and intrapersonal characteristics.Homophily limits people's social worlds in a way that has powerful implicationsfor the information they receive, the attitudes they form, and the interactions theyexperience. Homophily in race and ethnicity creates the strongest divides in ourpersonal environments, with age, religion, education, occupation, and genderfollowing in roughly that order. Geographic propinquity, families, organizations,and isomorphic positions in social systems all create contexts in whichhomophilous relations form. Ties between nonsimilar individuals also dissolve ata higher rate, which sets the stage for the formation of niches (localizedpositions) within social space. We argue for more research on: (a) the basicecological processes that link organizations, associations, cultural communities,social movements, and many other social forms; (b) the impact of multiplex tieson the patterns of homophily; and (c) the dynamics of network change over time

89

through which networks and other social entities co-evolve,

CommentDetailed exploration of ecological theories of homophily, the tendency of peopleto associate with people who are like themselves. Worth reviewing from a socialinnovation perspective since homophily can be a serious problem when thinking·about wide-scale social innovation. "The pervasive fact of homophily means thatcultural, behavioral, genetic, or material information that flows through networkswill tend to be localized." Figuring out how to overcome (or utilize) homomphilicforces is one of the key challenges for social innovators if they are interested in ­anything other than local effects. Dialogue-based approaches, for example, canbe thought ofas an attempt to disarm our tendency towardhomophily so that thatdisparate groups can think and work together effectively:

Portes, A.·(1998).· ..Social capital: Its origins and applications in·modern s.ociology"- Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1-24.

AbstractSocial capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology

Comment. A good place to start for a smart and quick, if academic-y, review of social capitalin the sociology lit. Not a lot that directly deals with the role of social capital insocial innovation, but a handy article for getting uptospeed on the conceptin ageneral way.

Sampson, R. J., J. D. Morenorr, et al. (2002). --Assessing--neighborhood effects--: Social processes and newdirections in researeh," Annual Review of Sociology 28:443-478.

AbstractThis paper assesses and synthesizes the cumulative results of a new"neighborhood-effects" literature that examines social processes related toproblem behaviors and health-related outcomes. Our review identified over 40relevant studies published in peer-reviewed journals from the mid-1990s to 2001,the take-off point for an increasing level of interest in neighborhood effects.Moving beyond traditional characteristics such as concentrated poverty, we';evaluate the salience of social-interactional-and institutional mechanismshypothesized to account for neighborhood-level variations in a variety ofphenomena (e.g., delinquency, violence, depression, high-risk behavior),especially among adolescents. We highlight neighborhood ties, social control,mutual trust, institutional resources, disorder, and routine activity patterns. We

90

also discuss a set of thorny methodological problems that plague the study ofneighborhood effects, with special attention to selection bias. We conclude withpromising strategies and directions for future research, including experimentaldesigns, taking spatial and temporal dynamics seriously, systematicobservational approaches, and benchmark data on neighborhood socialprocesses.

CommentHelpful review for those interested ln unpacking the intertwined nature of variouskinds of problems in local communities.

Schofer, E. and M. Fourcade-Gourinchas (2001). liThe structuralcontexts of civic engagement: Voluntary associationmembership in comparative perspective:' AmericanSociological Review 66(6): 806.

AbstractVoluntary association membership varies dramatically among nations, by boththe number and the type of associations that people join. Two distinctionsaccount for much of this variation: (1) the distinction between statist versusnonstatist (sornetimescalledvliberal") societies, and(2) the distinction betweencorporate versus noncorporate societies; These two dimensions summarizehistorically evolved differences in state structure, political institutions, and cultureof nations that channel, legitimate (or delegitimate), and encourage (ordiscourage) various types of associational activity. Membership in associations in32 countries is examined using data from the 1991 World Values Survey; .hierarchical models estimate the effects of individual-level and country-levelfactors on individual association membership. Results show that statismconstrains individual associational activity of all types, particularly in "new" socialmovement associations. Corporateness positively affects membership,particularly for "old" social movements. Finally, temporal trends indicate someconvergence toward anglo-american patterns of association.

CommentSeemingly broad (but somewhat narrowly conceptualized) look at differentpatterns of associational activity in various countries and their relationship to afew key factors.

Schuller, T., S. Baron, et al. (2000). Social capital: A review andcritique. Social capital: Critical perspectives. T. Schuller, S.Baron and J. Field. New York, Oxford University Press: 1-38.

Abstract

91

Good academic overviewofthe development of theconcept of Social Capital.Synthesizes various perspectives.

Comment

Small, M. L. (2002). "Culture, cohorts, and organization theory:. Understanding local participation in a Latino housingproject." American Journal of Sociology 108(1): i-54.

. AbstractRecent work on neighborhood effects has rekindled interest in social organizationtheory and its relationship to local social capital. This article addresses severalgaps in our knowledge about the mechanisms. linking structural conditions tosocial (dis)organization and the role of culture in this process. Relying on thecase of a predominantly Puerto Rican housing project in Boston, it investigateschanges in one aspect of social organization participation in local communityactivities suggesting the theory should incorporate the role of cohorts and culturalframes and rethink the relationship among structure, culture, and change.

CommentLong, smart article unpacking issues of place, culture, and participation.

Small, M.L. and K. Newman (2001). "Urban poverty after TheTruly Disadvantaged: The rediscovery of the family, theneighborhood,and culture." Annual Review of Sociology 27:33-45.

AbstractIn what follows we critically assess a selection of the works on urban poverty thatfollowed the publication of WJ Wilson's The Truly Disadvantaged. (1987), with aparticular focus on the family, the neighborhood, and culture. We frame ourdiscussion by assessing the broad explanations of the increased concentration ofpoverty in urban neighborhoods characteristic of the 1970s and 1980s. Then, inthe section on the family, we address the rising out-of-wedlock anddisproportionately high teenage birthrates of poor urban women. Next, wecritique the literature on neighborhood effects. Finally, in the discussion ofculture, we examine critically the new efforts at complementing structuralexplanations with cultural accounts. We conclude by calling for morecomparative, cross-regional, and historical studies, broader conceptions of urbanpoverty, and a greater focus on Latinos and other ethnic groups.

CommentQuick but thoughtful review of varying approaches to understanding endemic

92

poverty (in urban U.S.) ..

Tolbert,'C~ M., T. A.' Lyson, et at, (1998). "Local capitalism, civicengagement, and socioeconomic well-being.II Social Forces77(2): 401-427.

Abstract·This analysis is designed to extend a newly emerging body of social stratificationresearch grounded in theories of civil society. The goal of this larger body of

· research and writiilgis to provide an alternative social and economicdevelopment paradigm to the dominant neoclassical/rational choice/human'capital perspective.

CommentQuant study of relationship between social capital and local socioeconomicoutcomes. Emphasis on "local social structure" as a variable in economic

.development models. Particular support for the importance of "local. capitalism"(l.e., as opposed to Wal-Mart) as well as support for the importance of severalkinds of local noneconomic institutions.

Wilson, J. (2000). "Volunteering." Annual Review of Sociology 26:215-240.

AbstractVolunteering is any activity in which time is given freely to benefit another person,group or cause. Volunteering is part of a cluster of helping behaviors, entailingmore commitment than spontaneous assistance but narrower in scope than the

.care provided to family and friends. Although developed somewhatindependently, the study of volunteerism and of social activism have much incommon. Since data gathering on volunteering from national samples beganabout a quarter of a century ago, the rate forthe United-States has been stableor, according to some studies, rising slightly. Theories that explain volunteeringby pointing to individual attributes can be grouped into those that emphasizemotives or self-understandings on the one hand and those that emphasizerational action and cost-benefit analysis on the other. Other theories seek to

· complement this focus on individual level factors by pointing to the role of socialresources, specifically social ties and organizational activity, as explanations forvolunteering. Supportis found for all theories,although many issues remainedunresolved. Age, gender and race differences in volunteering can be accountedfor, in large part, by pointing to differences in self-understandings, human capital,and social resources. Less attention has been paid to contextual effects on

· volunteering and, while evidence is mixed, the impact of organizational,community, and regional characteristics on individual decisions to volunteer

93

remains a fruitful field for exploration. Studies of the experience of volunteering. have only just begun to plot and explain spells of volunteering over the life course .. and to examine the causes of volunteer turnover; Examining the premise that

volunteering is beneficial for the helper as well as the helped, a number ofstudies have looked at the impact of volunteering on subjective and objectivewell-being. Positive effects are found for life-satlsfactlon, self-esteem, self-ratedhealth, and for educational and occupational achievement, functional ability, andmortality. Studies of youth also suggest that volunteering reduces the likelihoodof engaging in problem behaviors such as school truancy and druq abuse..

CommentLook at empirical evidence on volunteering. Not too helpful in that it basically"finds that all sorts of(not unexpected) factors playa partin determining whovolunteers and why and what they get out of it. There isn't much one could dowith this article. .

94

Book List By Domain

Complex Adaptive SystemsBoulding, K.E.'(1985).Human betterment. Beverly Hills, Calif.,

, Sage- Publications.

Brown, S. L. and K. M. Eisenhardt (1998). Competing on the edge.Boston, Harvard Business School Press.

Erikson, 'K. T. (1995). A new species of trouble: the humanexperience of modern disasters. New York, W.W. Norton &Co.

Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: how little things can 'make a big difference. Boston; London, Little Brown.

Gleick,J. (1987). Chaos: Making a New Science. New York,, Penguin.

, .Gunderson, L. H'. andC.S. H~mng (2002).Panarchy :

Understanding transformations in human and naturalsystems. Washington, DC ; London, Island Press.

Homer-Dixon, T. F. (2002). Ingenuity gap. Vintage Books.

Jacobs, J. (1992). Systems of survival: a dialogue on the moralfoundations of commerce and politics. New York, RandomHouse.

Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: the connected lives of ants,brains, cities, and software. New York, Scribner.

Minnich, E. K. (1990). Transforming knOWledge. Philadelphia,Temple University Press.

Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science: learningabout organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco,Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

95

Institutional Theory & Social ConstructionBerger, P. L. and T. Luckmann (1967). The social construction of

reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. GardenCity, N.Y~, Anchor Books.

Daly, H. E., J. B. Cobb, et al. (1989). For the common good:.redirecting the economy toward community, theenvironment, and a sustainable future. _Boston, BeaconPress.

Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. London; Thousand Oaks [Calif.], SAGE Publications.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: outline of thetheory of structuration. Berkeley, University of CaliforniaPress.

Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. New York, RandomHouse.

McKnight, J. (1995). The careless society: community and. its·counterfeits. New York, BasicBooks.

Powell, W. W. and P. DiMaggio, Eds.(1991). The Newinstitutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago,University of Chicago Press.

Schorr, L. B. (1997). Common purpose: strengthening familiesand neighborhoods to rebuild America. New York, AnchorBooks.

Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. ThousandOaks, Calif., Sage Publications.

Social MovementsTarrow, S. G. (1998). Power in movement: social movements and

contentious politics. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY,Cambridge University Press.

96

Organization Theory & Organizational DevelopmentCooperrider, D.L. and J. E. Dutton, Eds. (1999). Organizational.

Dimensions of Global. Change. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimalexperience. New York, Harper & Row•

. Csikszentmihalyi~ M. (1997). Finding flow: the psychology ofengagement with everyday life. New York, BasicBooks.-

Ellinor,L. and G. Gerard (1998). Dialogue: rediscover the .transforming power of conversation. New York, J. Wiley & .

Sons.

Hock, D. (1999). Birth-of the chaordicage. San Francisco, CA,Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Isaacs, W. (19$~). Dialogue-and the ad of thinking together: apioneering approach to communicating in business and .inlife. New York, Currency.

McMaster, M. D. (1996). The intelligence advantage: organizing·for complexity. Boston, Mass., Butterworth-Heinemann.

Morgan,G. (1998). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA,Sage.

Petzinger, T. (1999). The new pioneers: the men and women whoare transforming the workplace and marketplace. NewYork, Simon & Schuster.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice ofthe learning organization. New York, Doubleday/Currency.

Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook : strategies andtools for building a learning organization. New York,Currency Doubleday.

97

Whyte, D. (1994). The heart aroused: poetry and the preservationof the soul in corporate America. New York, CurrencyDoubleday.

Whyte,D. (2001). Crossing the unknown sea : work asapilgrimage of identity. New York, Riverhead Books.

Zimmerman, Bit, C. Lindberg; et al.(1998). Edgeware : insightsfrom complexity science for health care leaders. Irving,Tex., VHA Inc.

Social EntrepreneurshipJohnson, S. (2000). Literature review on social entrepreneurship,

Canadian Centre for SOCial Entrepreneurship.·

InnovationChristensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: when new

technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, Mass.,Harvard Business School Press.

Nonaka,·I. D. and H. Takeuchi (1995). The knowledge-creatingcompany: How Japanese companies create the dynamicsof innovation. New York, Oxford University Press.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York London,Free Press; Collier Macmillan.

Van de Ven, A. H. (1999). The innovation journey. New York,Oxford University Press.

Social CapitalPutnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of

American community. New York, Simon & Schuster.

98

Book List By AuthorBerger, P. L. and T. Luckmann (1967). The social construction of

reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden. City, N.Y., Anchor Books.

Boulding, K. E. (1985). Human betterment. Beverly Hills, Calif.,Sage Publications.

Brown, S. L. and K. M. Eisenhardt (1998). Co~petingon the edge.Boston, Harvard Business School.Press.

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator·sdilemma: when new·technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, Mass.,Harvard Business·School Press.

Cooperrider, D. L. and J. E. Dutton, Eds. (1999). OrganizationalDimensions of Global Change. Thousand -Oaks, CA,Sage.

Csikszentrnihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimalexperience. New York, Harper & Row.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: the psychology ofengagement with everyday life. New York, BasicBooks.

Daly, H. E., J. B. Cobb, et al. (1989). For the common good:redirecting the economy toward community, the·environment, and a sustainable future. Boston,BeaconPress.

Ellinor, L. and G. Gerard (1998). Dialogue: rediscover thetransforming power of conversation. New York, J. Wiley &Sons.

Erikson, K. T. (1995). A new species of trouble: the humanexperience of modern disasters. New York, W.W. Norton &

Co.

Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. London; Thousand Oaks [Calif.], SAGE Publications.

99

.Giddens, A. (1984). The constitLition of society: outline of thetheory of structuration. Berkeley, University of California

Press.

Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: how little things can.make a big difference. Boston; London, Little Brown.

Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a New Science. New York,Penguin.

Gunderson, L. H. and C. S. Holling (2002). Panarchy:Understanding transformations in human and natural·systems. Washington, DC ; London, Island Press.

Hock, D. (1999). Birth of the chaordic age. San Francisco, CA,.Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Homer-Dixon, T. F.(2002). Ingenuity gap. Vintage Books.

Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together: apioneering·approach to communicating in business and in

. life. New York,Currency.

Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. New York, RandomHouse.

Jacobs, J. (1992). Systems of survival :a dialogue on the moralfoundations·of commerce and politics. New York, RandomHouse.

Johnson, S. (2000). Literature review on social entrepreneurship,Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship.

Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: the connected lives of ants,brains, cities, and software. New York, Scribner.

McKnight, J. (1995). The careless society: community and itscounterfeits. New York, BasicBooks.

100

McMaster, M. D. (1996). The intelligence advantage: organizingfor complexity. Boston, Mass., Butterworth-Heinemann.

Minnich, E. K. (1990). Transforming knowledge. Philadelphia,Temple University Press•

. Morgan, G. (1998). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA,Sage.

Nonaka, I. D. and H. Takeuchi (1995). The knowledge-creatingcompany : How Japanese companies create the dynamicsof innovation. New York, Oxford University Press,

Petzinger, T. (1999). The new pioneers: the men and women whoare transforming the workplace and marketplace. New·York, Simon & Schuster.

Powell, W. W. and P. DiMaggio, Eds. (1991). The Newinstitutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago,University of Chicago Press.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival ofAmerican community. New York, Simon & Schuster.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New YorkLondon,Free Press;Collier Macmillan.

Schorr, L. B. (1997). Common purpose: strengthening familiesand neighborhoods to rebuild America. New York, AnchorBooks.

Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. ThousandOaks, Calif., Sage Publications.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice ofthe learning organization. New York, Doubleday/Currency.

Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook : strategies andtools for building a learning organization. New York,

101

Currency Doubleday.

Tarrow, S. G. (1998). Power in movement: social movements and

contentious politics" Cambridge, UK; New York, NY,Cambridge University Press.

Van de Ven, A. H.(1999). The innovation journey. New York,Oxford University·Press.

Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science: learningabout organization from an orderly -universe. San Francisco,Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Whyte, D. (1994). The heart aroused: poetry and the_preservationof the soul in·corporate America. New York, CurrencyDoubleday.

Whyte, D. (2001). Crossing the unknown sea: work as apilgrimage of identity. New York, Riverhead Books.

Zimmerman, B., C. Lindberg, et al. (1998). Edgeware : insightsfrom. complexity science for health care leaders. Irving,Tex., VHA Inc. '

102