Special Issue
Guest Co-Editors: Karim Ben Slimane, ISC Paris Business School, France Damien Chaney, ESC Troyes in Champagne, France Ashlee Humphreys, Northwestern University, USA Bernard Leca, ESSEC Business School, France
Background
Despite a growing interest in marketing research for institutional theory (e.g. Humphreys 2010a; Humphreys, 2010b; Scaraboto, and Fischer, 2013; Dolbec and Fischer, 2015; Vargo and Lusch, 2016), many scholars acknowledge that there is still much insight to be gained using an institutional view of market dynamics (Ketchen and Hult, 2011; Chaney and Ben Slimane, 2014). Institutional theory has developed as one of the most influential organizational theories over the four last decades (Greenwood et al., 2008). It is also a disruptive research endeavor to challenge some widely held assumptions within organization and business studies such as methodological individualism and the efficiency dogma. Institutional theory originality hinges on a focus on the role of shared and diffused cognitive schemas that shape actors’ behaviors and dictate organizational forms and practices.
Central to institutional theory is the idea that organizations engage into specific behavior not only for efficiency purposes but because they perceived those behaviors as socially legitimate (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991). Thus, social practices exist not only because they are assessed as the most efficient but rather because they are viewed as the most appropriate by actors in the social and cultural environment (Suchman, 1995). More recently, institutional theory has raises questions regarding how actors can engage with institutions, in particular how they can attempt to create, maintain or disrupt established cognitive or practical categories such as markets or consumption practices (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence, Suddaby and Leca, 2009). Recent work using institutional theory in marketing has pointed to insightful avenues through which marketing assumptions can been challenged (Dolbec and Fisher, 2015). Institutional theory invites marketing scholars to move beyond the micro level consumer-firm dyad and to broaden the scope of marketing analysis to the macro-level of institutions (Chaney, Ben Slimane and Humphreys, 2016).
From this perspective one can understand how consumption practices are embedded in cognitive and cultural schemas socially constructed by a wide array of actors. Consumption occurs when macro institutional conditions that render them possible are established. Here institutional theory points to the role that several players can play in legitimating a given consumption practice. Institutional research shows that companies should not be considered the only active agents in a market. Consumers (Ansari and Philipps, 2011; Dolbec and Fischer 2015; Martin and Schouten 2014), authoritative bodies (Anand and Watson, 2004), rating agencies (Déjean et al., 2004) or intermediaries (Delacour and Leca, 2017) among other actors, all contribute to the social constructions of markets, and how products become perceived as legitimate and desirable by consumers.
However, this broader view of marketing remains largely under-explored. Dynamics of consumption practices emergence, maintenance and disruption deserve particular interest from researchers who address the construction process of the macro level conditions of consumption practices to grasp how consumers behave at the micro level.
We thus invite theoretical and empirical works that explores the process of emergence, maintenance and disruption of consumption practices and that acknowledges the variety of roles that actors can play in such institutional dynamics. The potential topics include, but are not limited to: How consumption practices emerge at the first place? How do they become institutionalized? How consumption practices are maintained and continue over time? How consumption practices erode and collapse? How do illegitimate consumption practices evolve over time? Why do some illegitimate consumption practices become legitimate whereas others disappear? What is the role of consumers as agents in the shaping of consumption practices at the macro level? How do consumers engage into institutional work? Beyond the dyad firm-consumer, what is the role of media, critics, technology, and professions in legitimating and delegitimizing consumption practices? How do collaborative dynamics among companies legitimate new market products and new consumption practices in emerging industries?
Submission guidelines
When preparing your submission, please check the JBR website for guidelines on style and paper length: http://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-business-research/0148-2963/guide-for-authors.
Manuscript submission for the review process will be done in the Elsevier Editorial system at the following website: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-business-research/
Submission details:
Initial Submission date: 1 December 2017
Submission deadline date: 31 March 2018
References
Anand, A. & Watson, M.R. (2004). Tournament Rituals in the Evolution of Fields: The Case of the Grammy Awards. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 59-80.
Ansari, S.A. & Phillips, N. (2011). Text Me! New Consumer Practices and Change in Organizational Fields. Organization Science, 22(6), 1579–1599.
Chaney, D., & Ben Slimane, K. (2014). A neo-institutional analytic grid for extending marketing to institutional dimensions. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 29(2), 99-117.
Chaney, D., Ben Slimane, K., & Humphreys, A. (2016). Megamarketing expanded by neo-institutional theory. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(6), 470-483.
Delacour, H. & Leca, B. (2017). The paradox of controversial innovation: Insights from the rise of Impressionism, Organization Studies, 38(5), 597–618.
Déjean, F., Gond, J.-P. & Leca, B. (2004). Measuring the Unmeasured: An Institutional Entrepreneur’s Strategy in an Emerging Industry. Human Relations, 57 (6), 741-764.
DiMaggio, P.W.W & Powell, W.W. (Eds.) (1991).The New Institutionalism in Organization Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dolbec, P. Y., & Fischer, E. (2015). Refashioning a field? Connected consumers and institutional dynamics in markets. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1447-1468.
Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Eds.). (2008). The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Humphreys, A. (2010a). Megamarketing: The creation of markets as a social process. Journal of Marketing, 74(2), 1-19.
Humphreys, A. (2010b). Semiotic structure and the legitimation of consumption practices: The case of casino gambling. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 490-510.
Ketchen, D. J., & Hult, G. T. M. (2011). Marketing and organization theory: opportunities for synergy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(4), 481-483.
Kotler, P. (1986). Megamarketing. Harvard Business Review, 64(2), 117-124.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (2nd edition) (pp. 215–254). London: Sage.
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Scaraboto, D., & Fischer, E. (2013). Frustrated fatshionistas: An institutional theory perspective on consumer quests for greater choice in mainstream markets. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1234-1257.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5-23.
