Call for Papers

Institutional boundaries define what is “inside” an institution – what ideas, practices, beliefs, and values – are considered legitimately a part of the institution and what is not (Gieryn, 1983; Lamont & Molnar, 2002). Over the past few decades, definitions of what is “inside” and “outside” of such institutions as marriage, nation states, and democracy have been the subject of vehement protests and extended public debates. Processes of institutionalization and transformation tend to make explicit the significance of institutional boundaries, drawing attention to the myriad comparisons and contrasts that are negotiated and constructed by a diverse array of interested actors (Grodal, 2018; Lounsbury & Rao, 2004; McAdam et al., 2003). In this sub-theme, we aim to explore the role of a specific actor in the construction and transformation of boundaries – that of institutional guardians, or actors that have vested authority and responsibility over an institution, and ensuring its continued legitimacy and relevance (DeJordy, 2010; Wang et al., 2020). These actors include governments, legal authorities, transnational organizations, professional associations, religious leaders, watchdog organizations, among others, whose social role and status are dependent on the institutions they guard.
 
While organizational research on boundaries and change have highlighted the central role of institutional guardians (Schneider et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2018), this role has become more complex and nuanced in the face of shifting societal dynamics and the unprecedented challenges posed by technological advancements, global health crises, geopolitical conflicts, and climate change. Navigating these profound shifts and disruptions is likely to require a reevaluation and “creative” adaptation of the traditional roles played by institutional guardians. The advent of artificial intelligence and automation, for example, have shifted the role of institutional guardians in many contexts from mere preservation to proactive adaptation. Similarly, the escalating impacts of climate change have prompted a reevaluation of institutional boundaries related to resource management, sustainability practices, and jurisdictional authority. The implications of these shifts are especially pronounced in emerging market contexts and the Global South, where the role of institutional guardians intersects with complex socio-economic challenges and considerations (Abramowitz, 2017; Handley & Limão, 2017; Krause, 2021).
 
Beyond transforming the role of institutional guardians, shifting societal dynamics and disruptions are presenting a number of methodological challenges for scholars going forward. To capture the contemporary role of institutional guardians in rapidly evolving and often unpredictable landscapes will likely require the integration of methodologies from different disciplines, context-sensitive longitudinal studies, and advanced dynamic modeling techniques (Garud et al., 2015; Grodal et al., 2021). It may also require innovative, flexible, and collaborative approaches to data collection and measurement – especially when examining emerging phenomena or those in politically sensitive contexts (Braun Střelcová et al., 2023; Tsai, 2010).
 
In line with the general theme for the Colloquium on creativity, this sub-theme aims to bring different schools of thought together to deepen our understanding of the changing role of institutional guardians in the creative processes of negotiating, constructing, and maintaining institutional boundaries.
 
The sub-theme will delve into several key questions:

• How has the nature of power (or sources of resistance) of institutional guardians changed in the face of societal shifts and global uncertainties?

• What new theoretical perspectives are needed to understand the contemporary role of institutional guardians?

• How are institutional guardians redefining their roles in the face of profound change and disruptive events?

• How are institutional guardians adapting to ensure the continued legitimacy and relevance of the institutions they safeguard?

• How do institutional guardians collaborate and compete to enhance the long-term resilience of institutions?

• What unintended consequences have emerged from the actions and decisions of institutional guardians during periods of disruption and change? How do these consequences shape the evolution of institutional boundaries?

• What temporal aspects of institutional guardianship become salient during periods of profound disruption and change and how do these aspects play out over the longer term?

• What methodological innovations are required to examine the multi-faceted and changing roles of institutional guardians and how do those methodological innovations influence the theory we generate and test?

• How can insights from studying institutional guardians in emerging markets and the Global South inform organizational theory and scholarship from the Global North?

References

• Abramowitz, S. (2017): “Epidemics (especially Ebola). Annual Review of Anthropology, 46, 421–445.

• Braun Střelcová, A., Cai, Y., & Shen, W. (2023): “The experience of European researchers in China: A comparative capital advantage perspective.” Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 14, 2663–2691.
• DeJordy, R. (2010): Institutional guardianship: The role of agency in preserving threatened institutional arrangements. Doctoral dissertation. Boston, MA: Boston College.
• Garud, R., Simpson, B., Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (2015): “Introduction: How does novelty emerge?” In: R. Garud, B. Simpson, A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (eds): The Emergence of Novelty in Organizations. Perspectives on Process Organization Studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1–24.
• Gieryn, T.F. (1983): “Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists.” American Sociological Review, 48 (6), 781–795.
• Grodal, S. (2018): “Field expansion and contraction: How communities shape social and symbolic boundaries.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 63 (4), 783–818.
• Grodal, S., Anteby, M., & Holm, A.L. (2021): “Achieving rigor in qualitative analysis: The role of active categorization in theory building.” Academy of Management Review, 46 (3), 591–612.
• Handley, K., & Limão, N. (2017): “Policy uncertainty, trade, and welfare: Theory and evidence for China and the United States.” American Economic Review, 107 (9), 2731–2783.
• Krause, J. (2021): “The ethics of ethnographic methods in conflict zones.” Journal of Peace Research, 58 (3), 329–341.
• Lamont, M., & Molnar, V. (2002): “The study of boundaries in the social sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.
• Lounsbury, M., & Rao, H. (2004): “Sources of durability and change in market classifications: A study of the reconstitution of product categories in the American mutual fund industry, 1944–1985.” Social Forces, 82 (3), 969–999.
• McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2003): “Dynamics of contention.” Social Movement Studies, 2 (1), 99–102.
• Schneider, M, Lord, E., & Wilczak, J. (2021): “We, Too: Contending with the Sexual Politics of Fieldwork in China.” Gender, Place & Culture, 28 (4), 519–540.
• Tsai, L. (2010): “Quantitative Research and Issues of Political Sensitivity in Rural China.” In: A. Carlson, M.E. Gallagher, K. Lieberthal & M. Manion (eds.): Contemporary Chinese Politics: New Sources, Methods, and Field Strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 246–265.
• Wang, M.S., Raynard, M., & Greenwood, R. (2020): “From grace to violence: Stigmatizing the medical profession in China.” Academy of Management Journal, 64 (6), 1842–1872.
• Zhao, E.Y., Ishihara, M., Jennings, P.D., & Lounsbury, M. (2018): “Optimal distinctiveness in the console video game industry: An exemplar-based model of proto-category evolution.” Organization Science, 29 (4), 588–611.
•