Organizational fields and the diffusion of information technologies within and across the nonprofit and public sectors: A preliminary theory

American Review of Public Administration

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 437-454

  Thatcher, Jason Bennett ^a   Brower, Ralph S ^b   Mason, Robert M ^c  

^a CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptive structuration theory; Nonprofit sector; Organizational fields; Qualitative methods; Technology diffusion

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750454761     PISSN: 02750740     EISSN: 15523357     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0275074006286704     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Alford, R. R. (1992). The political language of the nonprofit sector. In R. Merelman (Ed.), Language, symbolism, and politics (pp. 17-50). Boulder, CO: Westview.
2. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic criteria for DSM-IV-TR. Washington, DC: Author.
3. Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 78-108.
4. Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. (2003). The identity crisis within the IS discipline: Defining and communicating the discipline's core properties. MIS Quarterly, 27, 183-194.
5. Berry, F. S., Brower, R. S., & Flowers, G. F. (2000). Implementing performance accountability in Florida: What changed, what mattered, and what resulted? Public Productivity and Management Review, 23, 338-358.
6. Boland, R. J. (1991). Information system use as a hermeneutic process. In H. E. Nissen, H. K. Klein, & R. Hirschheim (Eds.), Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions (pp. 439-458). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
7. Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62, 174-184.
8. Bozeman, B. (1987). All organizations are public. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9. Bretschneider, S. (1990). Management information systems in public and private organizations: An empirical test. Public Administration Review, 50, 536-545.
10. Brower, R. S., Abolafia, M. Y., & Carr, J. B. (2000). On improving qualitative methods in public administration research. Administration & Society, 32, 363-397.
11. Corder, K. (2001). Acquiring new technology: Comparing nonprofit and public-sector agencies. Administration & Society, 33, 194-219.
12. Coursey, D., & Bozeman, B. (1990). Decision making in public and private organizations: A test of alternative concepts of "publicness." Public Administration Review, 50, 525-535.
13. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9, 284-295.
15. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5, 121-147.
16. DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: U.S. art museums, 1920-1940. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 267-292). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutionalism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
18. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1-38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19. Dufner, D., Hollely, L. M., & Reed, B. J. (2002). Can private sector information systems planning techniques work for the public sector? Communications of the AIS, 8 (28). 1-35.
20. Eagles, M., Katz, R. S., & Mark, D. (1999). GIS and redistricting: Emergent technologies, social geography, and political sensibilities. Social Science Computer Review, 17, 5-9.
21. Ebrahim, A. (2002). Information struggles: The role of information in the reproduction of NGO-funder relationships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 84-114.
22. Edelman, M. (1971). Politics as symbolic action. Chicago: Markham.
23. Edelman, M. (1988). Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989a). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14, 57-74.
25. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989b). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550.
26. Feldman, M. S., & March, J. G. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 171-186.
27. Flowers, G. F., Kundin, D. M., & Brower, R. S. (1999). How agency conditions facilitate and constrain performance-based program systems: A qualitative inquiry. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 11, 618-648.
28. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232-263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of a theory of structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
30. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
31. Hagedorn-Rasmussen, P., & Vogelius, P. (2003). What is value-adding: Contradictions in the practice of BPR in a Danish social service administration. Technology, Work and Employment, 18, 20-34.
32. Henman, P., & Adler, M. (2003). Information technology and the governance of social security. Critical Social Policy, 23, 139-164.
33. Innes, J. (1988). Effects of data requirements on planning: Case studies of environmental impact assessment and community development block grants. Computer, Environmental, and Urban Systems, 12, 77-88.
34. Kraemer, K. L., & Dedrick, J. (1997). Computing and public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 89-112.
35. Kraemer, K. L., King, J., Dunkle, D., & Lane, J. (1989). Managing information systems: Change and control in organizational computing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
36. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.
37. Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
38. Mintzberg, H. (1979). An emerging strategy of "direct" research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 580-589.
39. Moe, T. (1984). The economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 739-777.
40. Moon, M. J., & Bretschneider, S. (2002). Does the perception of red tape constrain IT innovativeness in organizations? Unexpected results from a simultaneous equation model and implications. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12, 273-291.
41. O'Connell, B. M. (1998). Ethics, law, and information technology: The transformative role of rhetoric. Social Science Computer Review, 16, 283-292.
42. Orlikwoski, W. J., & Iaconno, S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the "IT" in IT research. Information Systems Research, 12, 121-135.
43. Orlikowski, W. J., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of organizations. Information Systems Research, 2, 143-169.
44. Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13, 182-201.
45. Rocheleau, B., & Wu, L. (2002). Public and private information systems: Do they differ in important ways? American Review of Public Administration, 32, 379-397.
46. Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
47. Schutt, R. K. (2001). Investigating the social world (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
48. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49. Sheh, J. (1993). User-oriented marketing for nonprofit organizations. In D. Hammack & D. Young (Eds.), Nonprofit organizations in a market economy: Understanding new roles, issues, and trends. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
50. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research: Perspectives on practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52. Sutton, R. I. (1997). The virtues of closet qualitative research. Organization Science, 8, 97-106.
53. Tolbert, P., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionalization of institutional theory. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 175-190). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54. Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.