Call for Papers

Call for short papers (pdf)

Institutional fields are vital spaces for exploring and deepening our understanding of institutional processes (Zietsma et al., 2017). Sometimes described as the backbone of social life (Scott, 2014), fields are shaped by ongoing interactions of interconnected, often interdependent, webs of actors, all of whom have some stake in the shared understandings and material arrangements that constitute them (Fligstein & McAdam, 2011). Fields are not homogenous or stable entities; they vary significantly in terms of type and the conditions that shape field-level phenomena and processes (Zietsma et al., 2017). They are inherently dynamic assemblages in which actors and objects are in constant flux (Grodal & O’Mahony, 2017). Within these spaces, “rules of the game” and field boundaries are continuously (re)shaped and negotiated, altering their reach and porosity, and reconfiguring power differentials between field actors over time (Powell et al., 2017). Fields may encompass highly diverse sets of actors embedded within different, and often contentious, institutional logics and structures; they can also differ in terms of  maturity, coherence, settlement processes, and the degree of constraint imposed on material exchanges and participating actors (Buchanan et al., 2023; Zietsma et al., 2017).

Institutional field theory provides a particularly compelling lens through which to deepen our understanding of grand challenges, markets, and their interrelations as it provides a comprehensive lens through which scholars can explore multilevel, pluri-temporal, and multiscalar processes and relations involving diverse actors, untangle interactions and contestations between them, and unpack the evolving governance dynamics arising within and in between established and emerging fields (Buchanan et al., 2023; Grodal & O’Mahony, 2017). Grand challenges are typically defined as complex global social, economic, and environmental problems that require collective and coordinated action (George et al., 2016). The processes through which such challenges unfold are situated within evolving relational and contentious spaces (Wright et al., 2023)and temporal frames (Kim et al., 2019). Within these spaces, diverse communities—often guided by differing moral evaluation schemas—may clash as they pursue their respective interests and attempt to shape the field to their advantage. These dynamics often unfold within and through markets (Zietsma et al., 2018), where actors’ strategic (yet at times unintentional) engagements influence the evolution of field structures and collective responses to complex socioenvironmental challenges. Understanding  such complex and interwoven dynamics requires moving beyond analyses focused on a single organization (Zilber, 2014).

The study of institutional fields presents a number of unique challenges for scholars, theoretically, empirically, and methodologically. Theoretically, some scholars (Zietsma et al., 2017) believe the concept has been overstretched; multiple definitions of fields rest on widely different assumptions and require scholars to align all subsequent research decisions and processes with the particular definition they adopt in order to maintain coherence. Empirically, researchers must remain highly reflexive and attuned to their surroundings, as institutional fields are not directly observable but socially constructed arenas. Field structures often have to be inferred indirectly by tracing informal dynamics of influence, tracking fluid and contested patterns of membership over time, while also finding ways to untangle multiple overlapping fields. And finally, methodologically, scholars also face several challenges when studying institutional fields, including identifying field boundaries, conducting research over extended periods of time, gaining and maintaining access to field sites and actors, and analyzing data across multiple levels of analysis.

The purpose of this sub-theme is to update and advance our understanding of institutional fields and to bring together a community of scholars interested in forging fresh connections between studying the intricate dynamics of fields and deepening engagement with complex societal and environmental challenges. The most insightful contributions to this sub-theme may be invited to develop their work into a distinct chapter for a potential handbook on institutional field research.

Suggested research topics of interest to this sub-theme include, but are not limited to:

Conceptualizing institutional fields and their dynamics

• How do we conceptualize the different elements of a field’s institutional infrastructure and the interdependencies between them? (Hinings et al., 2017)

• How do the governance structures underlying fields emerge and evolve over time? Do these structures develop differently based on field type, and if so, how?

• How do we conceptualize and bridge micro-, meso-, and macro-level phenomena within fields? (van Wijk et al., 2019)

Empirically researching institutional fields and their dynamics

• How does regulatory turbulence and/or political polarization shape field dynamics?

• How does history shape field evolution and change (Aversa et al., 2022)? When do field settlement trajectories bifurcate and why?

• How do nonhuman actors, the natural environment, and/or spatiotemporal arrangements shape field dynamics? 

Institutional fields, grand challenges, and the Anthropocene

• How does the institutional infrastructure of climate and other issue fields enable or disable systemic change?

• How do we make sense of field stability and change when fragmentation, disorder, and crisis are the new “normal”? (Quattrone & Zilber, 2025)

Institutional fields and market emergence

• How do we trace the “beginnings” of market emergence through informal and low-commitment interactions?

• How do adjacent fields shape new market field formation processes?

Methodological innovations for doing field-level research

• How should field boundaries be defined and operationalized?

• How might multimodal methodological approaches deepen our understanding of institutional fields?

• What strategies are useful for ensuring and maintaining field access?

• How do we study fields longitudinally and at multiple levels of analysis?

• Aversa, P., Furnari, S., & Jenkins, M. (2022). The primordial soup: Exploring the emotional microfoundations of cluster genesis. Organization Science, 33(4), 1340–1371. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1484
• Buchanan, S., Zietsma, C., & Matten, D. (2023). Settlement constellations and the dynamics of fields formed around social and environmental issues. Organization Science, 34(2), 700–721. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1593
• Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2011). Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 29(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01385.x
• George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880–1895. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4007
• Grodal, S., & O’Mahony, S. (2017). How does a grand challenge become displaced? Explaining the duality of field mobilization. Academy of Management Journal, 60(5), 1801–1827. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0890
• Hinings, C. R., Logue, D., & Zietsma, C. (2017). Fields, institutional infrastructure and governance. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. Lawrence, & R. Meyer (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 163–189). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446280669.n7
• Kim, A., Bansal, P., & Haugh, H. (2019). No time like the present: How a present time perspective can foster sustainable development. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 607–634. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1295
• Powell, W. W., Oberg, A., Korff, V., Oelberger, C., & Kloos, K. (2017). Institutional analysis in a digital era: Mechanisms and methods to understand emerging fields. In G. Krücken, C. Mazza, R. E. Meyer, P. Walgenbach, & F. Schiller (Eds.), New themes in institutional analysis: Topics and issues from European research (305-344). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784716875.00016
• Quattrone, P., & Zilber, T. B. (2025). Theorizing in times of crisis, fragmentation and disorder. Organization Studies, 46(8), 1089–1094. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406251357722
• Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutional processes and organization fields. In Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests and identities (4th ed., pp. 219–256). SAGE Publications.
• van Wijk, J., Zietsma, C., Dorado, S., de Bakker, F. G. A., & Martí, I. (2019). Social innovation: Integrating micro, meso, and macro level insights from institutional theory. Business & Society, 58(5), 887–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318789104
• Wright, A. L., Irving, G., Zafar, A., & Reay, T. (2023). The role of space and place in organizational and institutional change: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 60(4), 991–1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12868
• Zietsma, C., Groenewegen, P., Logue, D. M., & Hinings, C. R. (2017). Field or fields? Building the scaffolding for cumulation of research on institutional fields. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 391–450. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0052
• Zietsma, C., Ruebottom, T., & Slade Shantz, A. (2018). Unobtrusive maintenance: Temporal complexity, latent category control and the stalled emergence of the cleantech sector. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1242–1277. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12350
• Zilber, T. B. (2014). Beyond a single organization: Challenges and opportunities in doing field level ethnography. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 3(1), 96–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-11-2012-0043