The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Do Fields Change? The Interrelations of Institutions, Networks, and Cognition in the Dynamics of Markets
Open accessAbstract
Sociological approaches to the economy identify three types of social structures relevant for the explanation of economic outcomes: social networks, institutions, and cognitive frames. This article contributes to the development of a framework which aims at an integrated perspective on the social structuring of markets and their dynamics. Based on the field concept, the article discusses the interrelations between the three types of structures as a source of the dynamics of markets. Bringing the complex and possibly contradictory character of the different social structures to the center of attention highlights spaces for innovation which are anchored in the social organization of markets but remain obscure in approaches that focus on only one of the structures. The simultaneous inclusion of social networks, institutions, and cognitive frames makes it possible to address how actors employ resources gained from one of these structures in the field to reconfigure other parts of the social structure in a way favorable to their goals.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Burt, R. S. (1992) · doi:10.4159/9780674029095 · Cited by 9,093
Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics
Pierson, P. (2000) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2586011 · Cited by 8,094 · cited 1×
“Institutionalists have developed theories of institutional inertia as well as institutional change based on concepts like path dependence, critical juncture, and internal institutional contradiction (Campbell 2004; Carruthers 1996; Pierson 2000; Streeck and Thelen 2005).”
BackgroundPath dependence in historical sociology
Mahoney, J. (2000) · Theory and Society · doi:10.1023/a:1007113830879 · Cited by 3,469
HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONALISM IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS
Thelen, K. (1999) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.369 · Cited by 3,409
Social Networks and Organizations
Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003) · doi:10.4135/9781849209915 · Cited by 1,581
Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis
Aoki, M. (2001) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/6867.001.0001 · Cited by 1,480
Cited by
Cornelissen, J., & Werner, M. (2014) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.1080/19416520.2014.875669 · Cited by 836
Geels, F. W. (2020) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119894 · Cited by 426
Putting Communication Front and Center in Institutional Theory and Analysis
Cornelissen, J. P., Durand, R., Fiss, P. C., Lammers, J. C., & Vaara, E. (2015) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0381 · Cited by 391
Metadata
- Authors
- Beckert, J.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-05
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 605-627
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W2104445936
- Cited by
- 446
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 35.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How Do Fields Change? The Interrelations of Institutions, Networks, and Cognition in the Dynamics of Markets. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0170840610372184
- The paper
- Beckert, J. (2010). How Do Fields Change? The Interrelations of Institutions, Networks, and Cognition in the Dynamics of Markets. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610372184
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
