The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Event Attention, Environmental Sensemaking, and Change in Institutional Logics: An Inductive Analysis of the Effects of Public Attention to Clinton's Health Care Reform Initiative
Abstract
We explore attention to Clinton's health care reform proposal, ongoing debates, and its political demise to develop theory that explains how events create opportunities for cognitive realignment and transformation in institutional logics. Our case analysis illustrates how a bottom-up process of environmental sensemaking led to the emergence and adoption of a logic of managed care, which provided new organizing principles in the hospitals' organizational field. In addition to theorization, highlighted by prior research, we propose a second mechanism of environmental sensemaking: representation of change through exemplars and environmental features. The interplay between theorization, representation, and ongoing event attention can lead to change in institutional logics over an event's life course. We found that the managed care logic did not emerge in a fully formed fashion, but that actors theorized individual dimensions of the logic consistent with changing representations of hospitals' relationships with other actors in the field. As the event unfolded, the individual dimensions came to be theorized as part of an overall managed care logic. The label “managed care,” previously understood as a specific organizational form, took on a new meaning to symbolize the organizing principles for hospitals' relationships with a variety of institutional actors as alternative models not congruent with the changing organizational field were abandoned.
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
The Content Analysis Guidebook
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071802878 · Cited by 9,286 · cited 1×
“Cohen’s kappa for individual codes were all above 0.73 indicating good agreement by chance and above the threshold of 0.70 suggested for content analysis (Neuendorf 2002, Krippendorff 2004).”
InfluentialStrategies for Theorizing from Process Data
Langley, A. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 · Cited by 7,008
Organizing and the process of sensemaking
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133 · Cited by 6,943
Institutional conditions for diffusion
Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1993) · Theory and Society · doi:10.1007/bf00993595 · Cited by 2,114
Cited by
Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2011.590299 · Cited by 3,519
Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2014.873177 · Cited by 1,764
Wijen, F. (2014) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0218 · Cited by 459
On the forgetting of corporate irresponsibility
Mena, S., Rintamäki, J., Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2016) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0208 · Cited by 209
How accounting begins: Object formation and the accretion of infrastructure
Power, M. (2015) · Accounting, Organizations and Society · doi:10.1016/j.aos.2015.10.005 · Cited by 200
Metadata
- Authors
- Nigam, A., & Ocasio, W.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 823-841
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2171982029
- Cited by
- 390
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 17.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.