showdown at kykuit: field-conÞguring events as loci for ... paper.pdfshowdown at kykuit:...

Showdown at Kykuit: Field-Configuring Events as Locifor Conventionalizing Accounts

Paul-Brian McInerneyUniversity of Illinois at Chicago

Despite the centrality of fields as a concept in organizational research, theprocesses by which fields form and change have not been studied in great depth. By situatingaction in time and space, field-configuring events (FCEs) offer valuable settings for researchersseeking insight into such processes. This paper develops a theory of accounts as a way tounderstand a mechanism by which institutional entrepreneurs seek to shape fields andinfluence the institutions that govern them. Actors produce and distribute justified accounts –narratives that describe the way work in the field ought to be done – and attempt to persuadepowerful actors in the field to adopt them as conventions. FCEs can thus be understood as locifor conventionalizing accounts. The theory of accounts and field-level change is illustrated witha case study of a turning point FCE during which competing institutional entrepreneurs in thefield of ‘non-profit technology assistance providers’ present alternative accounts. Successfulinstitutional entrepreneurship comes from recognizing political opportunities to align one’saccount with the dominant orders of worth in the field, thereby convincing powerful actorsto accept one’s account as convention.

INTRODUCTION

The notion of fields has become a crucial concept for understanding institutions and howthey emerge. DiMaggio’s (1991) groundbreaking study of the museum field establishedthe importance of examining the historical contexts and dynamic processes that underliefield formation. Yet, scholars struggle to identify the mechanisms by which institutionsinfluence behaviour on meso- and micro-levels (DiMaggio, 1988, 1997). Furthermore, asscholars seek to situate action in context (Emirbayer and Mische, 1998) and understandthe links between agency and institutionalization (Barley and Tolbert, 1997), time andspace become important components of their analyses (Glynn, 2008). Evidence of thisshift in the study of organizations comes from scholars who have studied award ceremo-nies (Anand and Watson, 2004), environmental warnings (Hoffman and Ocasio, 2001)and automobile races (Rao, 1994) to demonstrate the significance of field-configuringevents in shaping relations among actors within fields. Field-configuring events (FCEs)

Address for reprints: Paul-Brian McInerney, Department of Sociology, University of Illinois at Chicago,MC312, 1007 West Harrison Street, Chicago, IL 60607-7140, USA ([email protected]).

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2008. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UKand 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Journal of Management Studies 45:6 September 20080022-2380

mailto:[email protected]

are ‘settings where people from diverse social organizations assemble temporarily, withthe conscious, collective intent to construct an organizational field’ (Meyer et al., 2005,p. 467). Studying field-configuring events contributes to our overall knowledge abouthow fields develop and change and helps connect micro- and meso-level social processesto institutional-level processes. This paper focuses on a particular field-configuring event– a turning point in the transformation of a social movement dedicated to providingnon-profit organizations with expert assistance in the utilization of information technol-ogy. Examining this FCE highlights a key mechanism of agent-driven field configuration,viz. conventionalizing accounts. Field-configuring events thus become loci for conven-tionalizing accounts, i.e. narratives about how work in a given field ought to be done inan attempt to convince powerful actors in their fields to adopt their vision.

DiMaggio and Powell (1983) define fields as ‘those organizations that, in the aggre-gate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource andproduct consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations that produce similarservices and products’. Organizations in a field share rules and meanings, both ofwhich are culturally determined and given by institutions (Scott, 2003, p. 130). Theseshared rules and meanings are produced intersubjectively and come to be taken forgranted by the actors within the field (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). Such shared rulesand meanings are necessary to coordinate economic activities within fields. ‘Successful’activities become recognized and diffused as ‘best practices’ throughout the field(Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Yielding to isomorphic pressures, organizations adopt thestructures and practices recognized as best (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). As thesestructures diffuse, scholars theorize that the relations among actors in organizationalfields stabilize and routines become institutionalized (Fligstein, 2001; Strang and Soule,1998).

Yet by focusing almost exclusively on tendencies towards stability, scholars havelargely neglected the dynamic nature of fields (Meyer et al., 2005). Fields are also ‘arenasof power’ (Brint and Karabel, 1991), a phrase that expresses the contentious relationsthat shape them. Recent theorizing in organizational studies seeks to address thisconcern. Restoring the notion from Bourdieu’s original framework (Battilana, 2006;Mutch et al., 2006), one can understand fields as sets of ‘objective, historical relationsbetween positions anchored in certain forms of power (or capital)’ (Bourdieu andWacquant, 1992, p. 16). Fields generate the ‘rules of the game’, which guide, withoutdetermining, action and underlie actors’ claims of legitimacy (Bourdieu and Wacquant,1992, pp. 94–100). For Bourdieu, actors are agents, ‘socially constituted as active andacting in the field under consideration by the fact that they possess the necessaryproperties to be effective, to produce effects’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992, p. 107). Bydeveloping an insufficiently robust theory of agency, organizational scholars have longreified the notion of fields (DiMaggio, 1988; Mutch et al., 2006), in the process neglectingto study how individual actors become agents of institutional change (Battilana, 2006;Westenholz and Dobbin, 2006).

This paper theorizes and illustrates the power of human agents to drive the emer-gence of new organizational fields. I present an ethnographic history of the field ofnon-profit technology assistance providers (NTAPs). NTAPs are individuals and orga-nizations that deliver information technology services, such as consulting and training,

P.-B. McInerney1090

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2008

exclusively to non-profit and grassroots organizations. The data I present show howinstitutional entrepreneurs spawned a new social movement by promoting accounts,narratives about the way work in the field ought to be done, and anchoring them tomoral ideologies, encapsulated in orders of worth. I argue that institutional entrepreneursshape fields by attempting to conventionalize accounts, i.e. by convincing powerfulactors in the field to accept those accounts as taken-for-granted. Contests among actorswith competing accounts transformed a new social movement into the nascent field ofNTAPs.

The paper is organized as follows. I begin by discussing the agency exercised byinstitutional entrepreneurs, their strategy of conventionalizing accounts, and the settingsin which accounts are disseminated. Next, I introduce the case followed by a descriptionof my empirical methods. I then present an ethnographic account of the non-profittechnology assistance field. The paper ends by discussing the implications and contribu-tions of the analysis.

Institutional Entrepreneurs: Agents in the Emergence of Fields

A growing body of literature is concerned with the role of institutional entrepreneurs asa source of institutional change stemming from the action of individuals (Dacin et al.,2002; Dorado, 2005). Institutional entrepreneurs are actors who use their resources toconfigure or reconfigure institutional arrangements in a field. Building on the structu-ration of fields, institutional entrepreneurs take advantage of the enabling capacity ofinstitutions to effect changes that suit their interests (Troast et al., 2002). Personalattributes play a role in the ability of actors to manipulate institutional arrangements(Fligstein, 1997). The significance of institutional entrepreneurship as a concept lies in itsability to explain endogenous sources of institutional change. However, this very strengthhas been criticized for contributing to the ‘paradox of embedded agency’ (Greenwoodand Suddaby, 2006), meaning that agents are charged with changing the very contextthat shapes them (Leca and Naccache, 2006). In their study of elite accounting firms,Greenwood and Suddaby (2006) demonstrate that scholars can overcome the ‘paradoxof embedded agency’ by understanding the specific conditions under which actors areempowered as institutional entrepreneurs. Applying a Bourdieuian notion of fields,Battilana (2006) extends the theoretical implications of this finding, concluding thatactors’ positions within their field determine the degree to which they may be able to acteffectively as institutional entrepreneurs.

Personal attributes, context, and position may determine an actor’s ability to engagein institution-shaping activities, but what about the actions themselves? By what meansdo situated actors attempt to shape institutions? Such questions return to the phenom-enological roots of new institutionalism, reconnecting individual action with the institu-tional structures in which it takes place (Anand and Jones, 2008; Meyer, 2006). Toanswer this question, I rely on the notion of accounts, a concept that bridges institutionalconstraints and micro-orders (Rawls, 2002, p. 61). I contend that actors battle withinfields to conventionalize their accounts, in the process shaping what other powerful actorsconsider legitimate action and the criteria by which legitimacy is judged. I elucidate thistheory of conventionalizing accounts below.

Field-Configuring Events 1091


Conventionalizing Accounts

A theory of accounts begins with a basic premise: people live in a world of judgments.In responding to judgments and producing their own, actors are called upon to accountfor their behaviours as they call upon others to account for theirs (Garfinkel, 1984;Tilly, 2006). In their accounts, people give reasons for behaving in certain ways.Accounts are: ‘linguistic device[s] employed whenever an action is subjected to a valu-ative inquiry, [which] . . . prevent conflicts from arising by verbally bridging the gapbetween action and expectation’ (Scott and Lyman, 1968, p. 46). Therefore, accountsdo more than simply report behaviour, they justify it as well (Mills, 1940). As Stark andBruszt (1998, p. 192) explain, the term accounts ‘simultaneously connotes bookkeepingand narration. Both dimensions entail evaluative judgments, and each implies theother’.

Accounts are as unique and multiple as the situations they describe, but the reasonspeople give for their behaviours, i.e. justifications, generally conform to patterns and overtime ‘become conventionalized, taken-for-granted beliefs about why certain acts and prac-tices are normal and right’ (Biggart and Beamish, 2003, p. 456; emphasis added). Inother words, justified accounts become conventions, ‘largely implicit rules of action andcoordination, generated by humans and routinized’ (Storper and Salais, 1997, p. v).Actors reduce uncertainty by relying on conventions, rather than having to produce newjustifications every time they act a certain way. Conventions reflect individuals’ ability toactively construct and interpret uncertainty while influencing the rules that govern theirbehaviour (Lazega and Favereau, 2002).

As actors justify their behaviour, they must rely on moral anchors on which to securetheir accounts. If all reasons for behaving in a certain way were equally valid (an infinitenumber of anchors), the case in a world of pure moral relativism, one could noteffectively condone or denounce the behaviour of anyone else. On the other hand, ifthere were only one moral anchor, only one course of action would be justifiable in allcircumstances, an equally untenable stance. Boltanski and Thévenot (1991, 2006) iden-tify a limited number of historically-based moral anchors, which they call ‘orders ofworth’. Orders of worth allow actors to justify their behaviour while denouncing thebehaviour of others. For example, in the commercial world, actors make moral claims(accounts) based on their competitiveness in the marketplace, coordinate their activitiesthrough competitive relationships and seek to take advantage of economic opportunities(Boltanski and Thévenot, 1999, p. 372). Actors assess the worth of others based on theirability to operate according to the moral logic of the market (following a market order ofworth). On the other hand, under a green order of worth (Thévenot et al., 2000), for anorganization looking to be a good corporate citizen, adopting more environmentally-friendly production processes might seem like a good (and justifiable) thing to do.Organizations are infused with complex combinations of multiple orders of worth(Thévenot, 2001), several of which are in play at any given moment and may be invokedduring certain critical moments, allowing any particular action to invoke denunciationsfrom others, even from parties inside the organization. To extend my example, adoptingenvironmentally-friendly production processes might be challenged by others (invokinga market order of worth) as cutting into profits or undermining productive efficiency. As

P.-B. McInerney1092


moral anchors, orders of worth render conventions durable but not static, as they remainsubject to actors’ challenges.

To summarize, accounts become conventions as actors seek to normalize their nar-ratives by anchoring them to situationally-appropriate orders of worth and convincingpowerful actors within their field to adopt them. When successfully underpinned byorders of worth, conventionalized accounts can enable institutional entrepreneurs toconstruct organizational fields.

FCEs as Loci for Conventionalizing Accounts

In its current form, the theory of accounts I explained above remains metaphysical.However, actions are not metaphysical; they are situated (Bruun and Langlais, 2003).Understanding institutional change requires scholars to situate actors in the spatial andtemporal loci of events (Schmidt, 1997). Field-configuring events provide scholars withoccasions to study radical institutional change by examining the strategies and actions ofinstitutional entrepreneurs as they attempt to shape fields according to their interests.

Field-configuring events are contentious social spaces within organizational fields,providing a time and a place for actors to propagate their accounts while challengingthose of competing actors in the field. In other words, FCEs are occasions for institutionalentrepreneurs to make claims and test the claims of others (see Garud, 2008). In theprocess, certain accounts are accepted by powerful members of the field and becomeconventionalized, while others are rejected. During these critical moments, actors cantake advantage of ambiguities generated by competing accounts to make the case fortheir own while repositioning themselves, thereby reconfiguring the field. After describ-ing data collection and analysis methods employed in this study, I present a case study offield formation, showing how a social movement among technologists became institu-tionalized and was transformed into non-profit technology assistance field.

RESEARCH SETTING: THE FIELD OF NON-PROFIT TECHNOLOGYASSISTANCE PROVIDERS (NTAPs)

Scholars have recognized the non-profit sector as an organizational field sui generis(DiMaggio and Anheier, 1990). This paper concerns the portion of the non-profit sectorfocused on technology assistance, a field in its own right, which incorporates several kindsof actors: foundations, corporate sponsors, non-profit organizations, and the non-profittechnology assistance providers themselves. NTAPs are organizations and individuals thatprovide technology consulting services exclusively to non-profit and grassroots organiza-tions. Like all organizational fields, the non-profit technology assistance field is heteroge-neous. Aside from including foundations, corporate sponsors, and non-profit clients,NTAPs themselves assume a variety of organizational forms, from independent consult-ants (often referring to themselves as ‘NPIs’ or non-profit individuals) to Circuit Riders(foundation-affiliated technologists) to non-profit consulting firms. Historically, the non-profit technology assistance field began with the Circuit Rider Movement, the transfor-mation of which allowed for the introduction of alternative models and accounts. Thispaper traces the transformation of the Circuit Rider Movement into an institutionalized



field by analysing field-configuring events as the loci at which institutional entrepreneurssought to turn their accounts into conventions.

The Circuit Rider Movement

The compressed history of the Circuit Rider Movement provides abundant material withwhich to study the political struggles and events that shape fields. As summarized inTable I, two foundations played particularly important roles in the growth of the CircuitRider Movement. The W. Alton Jones Foundation gave rise to the first Circuit RiderProgramme in 1995, with the help of Gavin Clabaugh. The Rockefeller Family Fundsupported the expansion of Circuit Riding by developing their own Circuit RiderProgramme and sponsoring Rob Stuart, a key institutional entrepreneur in the movement.

Numbering between two and four thousand, the Circuit Riders are a movement ofpolitically left computer enthusiasts, supported by grants from foundations, whopromote, install, and support a variety of information technologies to non-profit andgrassroots organizations across the United States and abroad. As one organization activein the movement defines them: ‘Circuit Riders are a community of people with tech-nology skills who help non-profit organizations be more effective through the use oftechnology. We share a spirit of generosity towards each other and a commitment tosocial justice, a healthy environment and human dignity. We hold a fundamental beliefthat technology and all of its benefits must be made available to everyone’ (MediaJump-Start, 2002). As a movement, Circuit Riders are largely responsible for institutionalizingtechnology practices in the non-profit sector (McInerney, 2007). Circuit Riders tend tobe politically progressive, often expressing their ideals through the choice of organiza-tions with whom they work, e.g. by working exclusively with social justice or environ-mental organizations. Organizationally, the Circuit Riders are a loose network ofindividuals, often housed in foundations or foundation-supported Circuit Rider organi-zations, which work with non-profit and grassroots organizations throughout thecountry. They do not charge fees for their services, instead relying on foundations tosupport their work. With their progressive political ideology, distributed network struc-ture, and reliance on foundations for financial support, the Circuit Riders provide acontrast to the business-like approach of NPower, an entrepreneurial NTAP with cor-porate backing.

NPower

NPower began in 1999 with the support of Microsoft, which hired Joan Fanning toresearch the effectiveness of their software donation programmes. In her research,Fanning found that non-profits were unable to deploy technologies effectively becausethey lacked the expertise to do so. She proposed creating a non-profit consulting firm tohelp these organizations use technology donations more effectively. Microsoft providedthe seed money to start the organization, which Fanning named NPower. By late 1999,NPower began operating in Seattle, Washington and was immediately successful. Orga-nizationally and ideologically, NPower lies in contrast with the Circuit Riders. Incorpo-rated as a 501(c)(3), it acts as a non-profit consulting firm, charging clients directly for

P.-B. McInerney1094


services and adopting a distinctly social entrepreneurial approach to their work. Theyconsider themselves politically agnostic and willing to work with any non-religious501(c)(3) organization. After only one year of operations, Fanning received additionalsupport from Microsoft and other foundations to expand her organization nationally.

Table I. Roles of principal actors in the field of non-profit technology assistance providers

Role

ActorsGavin Clabaugh Helps the W. Alton Jones Foundation start the first circuit rider

programme. Provides initial account of non-profit technologyas being a equivalent to an organization’s mission.

Rob Stuart A fellow at the Rockefeller Family Fund. Alters original accountof non-profit technology to be about social justice. Works as aninstitutional entrepreneur to spread this account and build thenecessary conventions to maintain it and his model of circuitriding, at the same time, building a movement of like-mindedtechnology activists.

Joan Fanning With support from Microsoft, Fanning creates NPower, anon-profit technology assistance provider predicated on analternative account of non-profit technology (see below).Fanning takes advantage of turning point at Kykuit toconventionalize NPower’s account and change the direction ofthe field.

OrganizationsW. Alton Jones Foundation (WAJF) Started first Circuit Rider project. Later turned that project into

a programme. Circulated a report about their work, whichprovided a template for other foundations wishing to do thesame.

Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF) Gave a fellowship to Rob Stuart to start a circuit riderprogramme at their foundation. Provided support for Stuart’sinstitutional entrepreneurship.

Microsoft Brought in during the second round of the NSNT as a funder.At the same time, they are funding Fanning, who is starting anon-profit technology assistance organization of her own.

NPower Fanning’s non-profit technology assistance organization.Predicated on an alternative account of non-profit technology,one based on technology as efficiency and anchored to marketorders of worth.

Social collectivesCircuit Rider Movement The Circuit Rider Movement arose from the combined efforts of

WAJF and Rob Stuart’s institutional entrepreneurship. Themovement is committed to promoting social justice bydistributing information technologies to non-profit andgrassroots organizations that share their social justice mission.

National Strategy for NonprofitTechnology (NSNT)

Started and convened by Stuart. Began as series of meetings,which served as the primary field-configuring events elucidatedin this paper. Resulted in a document of the same name.



Following a discussion of my data collection and analysis methods, I will explain thefield-configuring event connecting the rise of NPower and the decline of the CircuitRider Movement.

METHODS

Unlike traditional variable-oriented research, in-depth case studies allow researchers toconfront unique situations and draw generalizable theories from them (Ragin, 1997;Steinmetz, 2004). Drawing conclusions from unique or rare events requires scholars topay attention to complex factors that contribute to certain outcomes and connect themtheoretically to precedent processes (Harding et al., 2002). For this paper, I draw on myfieldnotes, interview transcripts, and historical documents to analyse the case of a field-configuring event to explicate the associated mechanisms of institutional change. Usinga combination of ethnographic and historical methods, I was able to reconstruct asociological history of the movement from its inception to the point at which it becomesan institutional field. The event described in this paper is a fundamental turning point inthe history of the movement – the point at which power shifts significantly from thefounding core of the movement to more recent commercial actors in the field, trans-forming a social movement into an institutionalized organizational field.

Ethnographic Methods

Over the course of two and a half years, I conducted fieldwork at sites across the UnitedStates, including NPower offices in New York and Seattle, and visits to seven additionalnon-profit technology assistance providers, three national non-profit technology confer-ences, three local events (in New York and Boston), and three NPower events, includinga weekend-long training event for all affiliates. Attendance at these events producedcopious fieldnotes, which were transcribed and analysed using methods of iterativememo writing and constant comparison to identify key themes throughout (Emersonet al., 1995).

Beyond producing an ethnographic description of the culture of a group, the point ofethnography is to draw out what Van Maanen (1979b) calls the ‘second-order concepts’,i.e. the theoretical import of cultural descriptions. For this paper, the first-order conceptsare the description of events and the words participants use to explain what is happeningin them, from the perspectives of those involved (also known as the emic perspective).The second-order concepts come from analysing those events through a theoretical lens.To do so requires the ethnographer to abstract the core qualities of the everydayexperiences and interpretations of participants and understand them through an outsid-er’s perspective (also known as the etic perspective). The etic perspective bridges partiallyanalysed data and theory building efforts (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Schatzman andStrauss, 1973). For narrative and analytical consistency, I present emic perspectivescoupled with their etic interpretations throughout the results section of the text. Thisapproach to reporting qualitative studies helps the reader evaluate the veracity oftheoretical claims against the evidence.

P.-B. McInerney1096


Supplementary Qualitative Methods

Ethnography is a rubric for multiple qualitative research methods. Throughout thecourse of my fieldwork, I conducted 84 formal interviews in person and over thetelephone. Interviews, which lasted between 45 minutes and 4 hours, elicited informants’perspectives on the history of the field (or in some cases, the organizations to which theybelonged), their roles in those histories (or organizations), and their positions within thecommunity. Informants were selected using modified snowball sampling (Howard,2002). Since the boundaries of a field cannot be known a priori, I relied on respondentsto define other important actors that belonged (Latour, 1987). Boundary delineation isan expression of power (Lamont and Molnar, 2002), which meant I had to corroboratethe historical significance and authority of potential respondents with some form ofofficial documentation. To do so, I acquired several official lists through my fieldwork,including the membership lists of the NTAP trade association for the first four years itoperated, the attendance lists of conferences for five of the seven events it held over theperiod in question, and the attendance lists for the field-configuring event. Interviewswere tape recorded and transcribed. The transcriptions were analysed by invoking thesame methods to draw out themes that were used with fieldnotes, multiple iterativememos and constant comparison.

A strength of ethnography as a research method is the ability study action in situ ( VanMaanen, 1979a). By wading into the social waters, ethnographers capture events in theeveryday lives of individuals and organizations. Regarding the context of time, ethnog-raphy is well-suited to capture the processual aspect of social and organizational change(Barley, 1990; Burawoy, 1998; Van de Ven and Huber, 1990), which makes it comple-mentary to historical methods. As Moore (1996) demonstrated, by combining historicaland ethnographic methods researchers can connect social movement processes to field-level outcomes.

Historical Methods

Capturing the nuanced perspectives on an event taking place in the past requiredhistorical methods. For this paper, I analysed physical and electronic documents sur-rounding the event described herein. I procured most of the documents analysed in thecourse of fieldwork. Members of the group I studied are themselves technologicallysavvy, which meant that many of the documents organizations and actors produced werecreated and distributed in electronic format. During my fieldwork, I collected annualreports, memos, emails, and other formal organizational documents, including planningdocuments for the field-configuring event. Outside of those gathered during fieldwork, Iprocured other official documents, including websites and news articles from the InternetArchive (http://www.archive.org), a searchable database of captured websites that areno longer available online. The Internet Archive provided websites and other formaldocuments about organizations that no longer operate. It also provided similar dataabout initiatives that have since expired. The Internet Archive saves copies of websites atdifferent multiple points in time. Websites are not captured systematically, leavingincomplete records. Yet, the Internet Archive and other historical documents I collected



http://www.archive.org

during fieldwork provide a valuable record of how organizations develop and change asindicated by the formal representations and claims they make through official channelsof communication (Hodder, 2000; Lamertz et al., 2005; Star, 1999). Texts do not merelyrepresent, they reproduce social life, making document analysis a necessary componentto a complete understanding of institutional entrepreneurship as an engine of institu-tional change (Munir and Phillips, 2005).

Analysing Data

Analysing various types of data from such multifarious sources presents many challengesfor qualitative researchers (Ryan and Bernard, 2000). To analyse these data, I relied ongrounded theory techniques (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), such as iterative memo writingand constant comparisons (Emerson et al., 1995). After leaving the field, I coded excerptsof my fieldnotes, interview transcripts, and documents chronologically and by the roleactors played in shaping the field. By doing so, I was able to reconstruct a sociologicalhistory of the non-profit technology assistance field from the standpoint of actorsattempting to shape it.

From this history, I identified the conference at Kykuit as a major turning point in theformation of the non-profit technology assistance field, the moment at which the fieldturned from social movement to nascent institutionalized field. Kykuit appeared as thefocal FCE in the transformation of the Circuit Rider Movement into the institutionalizedNTAP field in many of the interviews I conducted. Interview data were triangulatedagainst an analysis of the agendas of the Circuit Riders’ annual conference, the RidersRoundup, and the Riders’ email list. Both indicated a marked discursive shift subsequentto the meeting at Kykuit. Early Roundups resembled movement meetings. One CircuitRider explained how the Roundups forged a collective identity for the movement,describing the purpose of the event as, ‘people identifying each other as “we havesomething in common, we can help each other do this”’ (Personal interview, 6 Novem-ber 2003). After Kykuit, the Roundup resembled a professional conference, featuringpanels on technology benchmarks and evaluating client satisfaction. Before Kykuit,discussions on the Circuit Riders’ email list were dominated by political discussions abouttechnology, e.g. the implications of Microsoft’s dominance in the operating systemmarket for the prospects of social justice. After Kykuit, most threads followed technicaldiscussions, e.g. how to configure an Exchange server to work with Apple computers.Finally, foundation grant records indicate a shift in funding priorities and funds fromCircuit Rider Programmes (many of which were hosted in-house at the foundations) tostand-alone non-profit consulting firms, primarily NPower. Clearly, something hadchanged the way NTAPs thought about and approached their work; something hadreshuffled positions on the field; and it happened at Kykuit.

INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND THE RISE OFA TECHNOLOGY SOCIAL MOVEMENT

The 1980s were a time of retrenchment in the voluntary sector, leading many non-profits and foundations to focus their resources exclusively on operations and structures

P.-B. McInerney1098


necessary for achieving organizational missions (Bielefeld, 1992; Galaskiewicz andBielefeld, 1998). While government agencies and businesses took advantage of advancesin information technologies, non-profit and grassroots organizations were being leftbehind (Corder, 2001). Throughout the 1990s, the Circuit Rider technology movementsought to help the voluntary sector catch up. Following from the analysis describedabove, Figure 1 presents a timeline of events in the emergence of the Circuit RiderMovement and its subsequent institutionalization.

Initial Accounts: Drawing Equivalence between Technology and Mission

The Circuit Rider technology movement began in earnest in 1995, when the W. AltonJones Foundation (WAJF) initiated the first Circuit Rider project. Gavin Clabaugh, aformer futures consultant, approached WAJF with a vision: technology was as importantto non-profit organizations as their mission. Drawing equivalence between technologyand mission provided a foundational account of non-profit technology. With Clabaugh’shelp, WAJF expressed this account by developing an innovative pilot project to delivertechnology to non-profit organizations, calling the new mode of service delivery CircuitRiding. The model of Circuit Riding took the form of a consultant (called a CircuitRider), hired by the foundation to travel across the country, providing technologyservices to the foundation’s portfolio of grantees.

By WAJF’s measures, the Circuit Riding project was a success. In one year, the firstCircuit Rider connected 50 grantees in WAJF’s portfolio to the Internet, training staffmembers at each organization, and developing email lists so they could share resourcesand information. At the end of the project, WAJF adopted Circuit Riding as a founda-tion programme and issued a report heralding their success. Entitled ‘Circuit Riders:Pioneers in Non-profit Networking’, the report articulated the first formal account of theCircuit Rider model of technology support, replete with puns, witticisms, observations,and practical tips for reproducing it. As a formal account, the WAJF report provided ablueprint and justification for a new way to provide technology assistance to non-profitand grassroots organizations. The account was anchored to primarily to a civic order ofworth, as demonstrated by a focus on the relationship between circuit riding andorganizational mission. Though the civic order dominated the WAJF report and subse-quent Circuit Rider accounts, it is interesting to note that the report also referenced asecondary anchor: an industrial order, represented by claims of efficiency. The reportmakes note of how inexpensive the Circuit Rider programme was in light of the orga-nizational benefits it provided.

Shifting Accounts, New Equivalence: Technology as Social Justice

The WAJF Circuit Rider report circulated widely among foundations and progres-sive technologists throughout the non-profit sector. Other foundations began todevelop Circuit Rider programmes of their own. Among the largest to do so was theRockefeller Family Fund (RFF), a foundation supporting progressive causes through-out the United States, such as organizations promoting social and economic justice.Influenced by the Internet hype in the late 1990s, Rob Stuart, a fellow at RFF, saw



0002 9991

8991 7991

6991 599 1

Acc

ount

of

Tec

hnol

ogy

in N

on-

prof

it S

ecto

r

e citsuJ lai coS = ygolonhce

T noi ssi

M = ygolon hceT

Tec

hnol

ogy

= E

ffici

ency

Dom

inan

t Ord

er o

f W

orth

lairtsudnI ,tekra

M derips nI ,civ i

C civi

C

Indi

vidu

al

Act

ivity

Cla

baug

h ap

proa

ches

W

. Alto

n Jo

nes

Fou

ndat

ion

(WA

JF),

he

lps

deve

lop

first

circ

uit

rider

pro

gram

me

S

tuar

t ap

proa

ches

Cla

baug

h ab

out

circ

uit r

idin

g

Stu

art e

stab

lishe

s N

SN

T in

itiat

ive,

co

nven

esm

eetin

gs

Stu

art p

rese

nts

his

acco

unt t

o la

rger

au

dien

ce

Stu

art l

oses

co

ntro

l of m

eetin

g,

Fan

ning

take

s co

ntro

l

Fan

ning

esta

blis

hes

NP

ower

, whi

ch

quic

kly

beco

mes

su

cces

sful

Fan

ning

lead

s N

Pow

er e

xpan

sion

, la

unch

ing

affil

iate

s in

12

citie

s ac

ross

U

SA

At t

he s

ame

time,

cr

eatin

g th

e fir

st a

ccou

nt

of n

on-p

rofit

tech

nolo

gy

Stu

art a

lters

ac

coun

t of n

on-

prof

it te

chno

logy

Stu

art a

cts

as ‘c

ircui

t rid

ers’

circ

uit r

ider

’ an

d ev

ange

lizes

to n

on-p

rofit

tech

nolo

gy

and

foun

datio

n co

mm

unity

Fan

ning

pre

sent

s al

tern

ativ

e ac

coun

t to

circ

uit r

idin

g

Stu

art l

oses

le

ader

ship

posi

tion

Stu

art h

eads

Tec

h R

ocks

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Act

ivity

WA

JF e

stab

lishe

s C

ircui

t Rid

er

Pro

gram

me

Roc

kefe

ller

Fam

ily F

und

(RF

F)

give

s fe

llow

ship

to

Stu

art

Add

ition

al fo

unda

tions

enr

olle

d in

to

disc

ours

e F

ound

atio

ns r

ejec

t S

tuar

t’s a

ccou

nt,

acce

pt F

anni

ng’s

Mic

roso

ft,

Sur

dna,

oth

er

foun

datio

ns fu

nd

NP

ower

sta

rt-u

p

Mic

roso

ft, S

urdn

a,

othe

r fo

unda

tions

fu

nd N

Pow

er

natio

nal e

xpan

sion

W

AJF

pub

lishe

s an

d di

strib

utes

Circ

uit R

ider

R

epor

t

WA

JF tu

rns

Circ

uit R

ider

pro

ject

into

a p

rogr

amm

e. S

ever

al

foun

datio

ns, i

nclu

ding

Roc

kefe

ller

Fam

ily F

und,

sta

rt C

ircui

t R

ider

Pro

gram

mes

of t

heir

own

Fou

ndat

ions

bac

k F

anni

ng’s

pla

n fo

r no

n-pr

ofit

tech

nolo

gy

Fan

ning

take

s ov

er N

SN

T

RF

F s

pins

off

its

Circ

uit R

ider

P

rogr

amm

e, w

hich

be

com

es T

ech

Roc

ks. W

AJF

di

vest

s, d

ism

antle

s C

ircui

t Rid

er

Pro

gram

me

Fie

ld C

onfig

urin

g E

vent

:rebotcO 12 –9 1

: ylu J 2 2–026–

8 D

ecem

ber:

F

irst N

SN

T M

eetin

g –

Atla

nta,

G

A

Sec

ond

NS

NT

M

eetin

g –

Mon

tere

y,

CA

Thi

rd N

SN

T

Mee

ting

– K

ykui

t, N

Y

Add

ition

al

Mile

ston

es

15 C

ircui

t Rid

ers

invi

ted

to a

ttend

th

e fir

st R

ider

s R

ound

up

24 C

ircui

t Rid

ers

invi

ted

to a

ttend

sec

ond

Rid

ers

Rou

ndup

S

hift

from

soc

ial

mov

emen

t to

inst

itutio

naliz

ed

field

NS

NT

dis

man

tled

– N

-TE

N fo

unde

d 87

Circ

uit R

ider

s an

d fo

unda

tion

offic

ers

atte

nd

four

th R

ider

s R

ound

up. E

vent

no

long

er in

vita

tion

only

41 C

ircui

t Rid

ers

invi

ted

to a

ttend

th

ird R

ider

s R

ound

up

Figu

re1.

Tim

elin

eof

even

tsin

the

emer

genc

eof

the

Cir

cuit

Rid

erM

ovem

enta

ndits

subs

eque

ntin

stitu

tiona

lizat

ion

P.-B. McInerney1100


Circuit Riding as a way of creating a more just society by spreading information andcommunications technologies to under-represented groups. After reading the WAJFreport, Stuart created the Rockefeller Technology Project, a Circuit Rider programmeat RFF.

The diffusion of organizing models is rarely an act of pure emulation (Campbell,2005). Rather, organizations ‘edit’ what they see as successful models in the field (Sahlin-Andersson, 1996). In this case, Stuart ‘edited’ Clabaugh’s and WAJF’s account ofnon-profit technology. Instead of technology being equivalent to mission, for Stuart,technology in the non-profit sector was about promoting social justice. Analogously,Stuart recreated the Circuit Rider account, drawing equivalence between Circuit Ridingas a model of technology assistance and the ideal of social justice.

Stuart also took the Circuit Rider metaphor very seriously, noting in an interview,‘Evangelism is a very important part of the job’ (Gilbert, 1998). Stuart himself wrote inan article about his version of the model, ‘in the 19th century, the original Circuit Riderswere itinerant traveling preachers. Modern-day Circuit Riders travel the country “evan-gelizing” for the use of new communications technology’ (Stuart, 1998). Beyond con-vincing non-profit and grassroots organizations of the merits of information andcommunications technologies, Stuart called himself the ‘Circuit Rider’s Circuit Rider’(Personal interview, 31 May 2002), spending a good part of his time at RFF growing andorganizing the movement and acting as an institutional entrepreneur. He did so bytravelling around the country, spreading his modified account of non-profit technology(i.e. using technology in the non-profit sector to promote social justice) and its mode ofexpression in Circuit Riding.

Early leaders in the field note the extent of Stuart’s influence. Richard Zorza, whostarted his non-profit technology career in the mid 1980s, notes, ‘when Rob [Stuart]came in and started to build a network that was much more about transformation [i.e.information technology and progressive social change], then the network started tobuild’ (Personal interview, 6 November 2003). Gavin Clabaugh, who oversaw the firstWAJF Circuit Rider project agrees, ‘to a large extent, it was Rob [Stuart] who built themovement . . . We [WAJF] came up with a model and did some of the initial stuff, buthe was the one who expanded it and pushed it forward’ (Personal interview, 6 August2002).

Stuart’s strategy of institutionalizing a set of practices he espoused was to distribute hisaccount of non-profit technology to other members of the field. Providing a model(Circuit Riding) as the appropriate mode of expressing that account helped enrol newactors into the movement, people like Marshall Mayer:

Most of us . . . had been doing Circuit Riding. In my case, I had already been doingit for ten years. I just never called it that. I did on-site technical assistance fornonprofits since 1989, or actually, in my case, since 1986, it was not my full-time job,but I was doing it. Many of us were the same way; we just had not called it that.Literally, by just calling it that, we created a methodology and a buzz that went alongwith that methodology. (Personal interview, 14 May 2002)

Rob Stuart recalls:



One of the reasons I think the movement grew was we were very quick to help peopleidentify themselves as Circuit Riders. They had never called themselves that before.They were maybe consultants or they didn’t know what they were. Giving them aname . . . helped along to establish Circuit Riders [as a movement]. We began to growas actual numbers and in fact have more formal Circuit Rider programs beingsupported. (Personal interview, 31 May 2002)

Stuart was providing more than an identity, however, he was providing an account, astory that provided moral justification for Circuit Riding as a way of delivering technol-ogy to the non-profit sector and promoting social justice. Told in the right way, suchstories are critical in enrolling adherents into a movement and providing moral authorityfor their actions (Polletta, 2006). By authoring a new account, repeating it to actors in thefield, and using it to enrol others, Stuart reinforced his leadership position in themovement.

To distribute his account and formally organize the Circuit Rider Movement, Stuartconvened a series of conferences, called Riders Roundups. The Riders Roundups beganin 1997 and continued until 2003, when the event was taken over by the newly formedtrade association for non-profit technology assistance providers. The Roundupsassembled Circuit Riders from across the country, uniting the movement and forging afield. Following the history of the Roundups would likely provide a narrative demon-strating the role of sequential events and standardizing accounts in stabilizing organiza-tional fields. Yet, despite the initial stabilizing effects of the Roundups for the movement,the structure of the non-profit technology assistance field was inexorably altered byevents taking place elsewhere, during Stuart’s other organizing effort: the NationalStrategy for Nonprofit Technology (NSNT).

ADVANCING ACCOUNTS: THE NATIONAL STRATEGY FORNONPROFIT TECHNOLOGY

To maintain the momentum of his organizing efforts and generate further resources,Stuart sought to create a social contract between foundations and the nascent CircuitRider Movement with an initiative called the National Strategy for Nonprofit Technol-ogy (NSNT). The NSNT began as a series of working meetings designed to create adocument with the same name. For Stuart, the NSNT document would provide a formalaccount of the Circuit Rider model he espoused, one he could present to the foundationworld for material and symbolic support. Stuart believed the NSNT would be a way ofgetting foundations and other powerful actors in the field to ‘see the transformativepower’ of information and communications technologies (Personal interview, 21 May2004). Following from this recognition, Stuart believed that foundations and otherpowerful actors in the field would contribute material resources to the Circuit RiderMovement and symbolic resources in the form of endorsements of the model. In otherwords, the NSNT initiative was an attempt to conventionalize Stuart’s account ofnon-profit technology and the practices of Circuit Riding. With the NSNT, Stuartrecognized the chance to shape the field and validate the organizational forms that couldlegitimately participate.

P.-B. McInerney1102


Under his initiative, Stuart assembled leaders in the non-profit sector for three plan-ning meetings, which took place over nine months in 1998. Though entrée to theinitiative was ostensibly open, Stuart handpicked the initial round of participants. TheNSNT was funded by several foundations: W. Alton Jones, David and Lucille Packard,Rockefeller Family Fund, and the Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Foundation, all of whichhad a presence at the meetings. Additional support was provided by Microsoft, who sentJoan Fanning as their representative. Fanning recalls how she was enrolled in theinitiative: ‘Microsoft was connected [to the NSNT] at the time in terms of funding. Theywere helping fund the national effort. At the same time, I was engaged to write a businessplan [for Microsoft]. They [Microsoft] let these folks [at the NSNT] know that we arealso going to be doing something locally. Rob gave me a call and said, “We are lookingto do this national thing, do you want to participate?” That is how I went to the firstmeeting in 1998’ (Personal interview, 9 April 2004).

An Alternative Account: Technology as Efficiency

Fanning was hired earlier that year by Microsoft to write a white paper about ways tomake their software donation programme more effective. The white paper suggestedcreating a new kind of non-profit technology assistance provider (NTAP) to help non-profits select and deploy software solutions more effectively. As a result, Microsoftprovided Fanning with financial, in-kind, and technical support to start an NTAP of herown. She started by writing a business plan for the organization. Calling her organizationNPower, Fanning sought to develop a response to what she saw as exclusion amongCircuit Riders, who worked exclusively with social justice or environmental groups. AsFanning explains, ‘I have worked for years in direct service delivery, domestic violence,human services, they are doing social change. It [the Circuit Riders’ exclusivity] felt likethis real judgmental thing. I think the agencies on the ground working with kids at risk,working with the elderly, they are doing the work of social change’ (Personal interview,16 September 2002). Fanning anchored her account to a market order of worth. Ratherthan focusing on ideological niches, like the Circuit Riders, NPower would rely on thedemocracy of the market: It would work with any non-profit who could afford itsservices. This meant forgoing certain sources of philanthropic support, like the third-party payer model of the Circuit Riders.

Early NSNT Meetings

The first NSNT meeting, entitled ‘Technology Leveraging Change’, took place inAtlanta, Georgia on 20–22 July 1998 to correspond with the Alliance for NonprofitManagement conference. According to Stuart’s PowerPoint presentation for the event,its 24 attendees were ‘an expanding network of creative and collaborative leaderscommitted to using technology to leverage social change’. The planning document thatserved as a guide for the meeting claimed the goal of the NSNT was ‘to increase theThird Sector’s capacity to use technology so that it can better protect, preserve, andextend the social values entrusted to it, while serving our communities and our countryas a new economy emerges’ (Planning Partners, 1999). The planning document also



articulated the NSNT’s core values as ‘reciprocity, fair compensation, continual learn-ing, and open standards’. In expressing these ideals to foundations, the NSNT was anattempt at conventionalizing an account of non-profit technology assistance thatembraced the Circuit Rider model and all its values while associating them with theideals of the ‘Third Sector’. Stuart’s hope was that his account, inscribed in the NSNT,would assert the Circuit Rider model and its values as the natural, and therefore right,way of providing technology assistance to the non-profit sector. Once backed by pow-erful actors in the field, such as the foundation officers who could provide materialsupport and legitimacy to the model, Stuart’s account would become solidly justified (i.e.durably connected to a situationally-appropriate order of worth), and thereby conven-tionalized. Stuart’s position in the field, in relation to his work as a fellow with theRockefeller Family Fund afforded him the power to mobilize resources in the field.

The second NSNT planning meeting was held in Monterey, California on 19–21October 1998, to take advantage of the inaugural Grantmakers for Effective Organiza-tions Conference. Stuart continued assembling powerful actors in the field, this timeinviting Barbara Kibbe, who worked at the Packard Foundation and headed Grantmak-ers for Effective Organizations, to join the NSNT initiative. She brought her formeremployer into the fold and provided Stuart access to an entirely new group of funders.Grantmakers for Effective Organizations was a consortium of foundations that madegrants for capacity-building in non-profit organizations. Technology was already on thecapacity-building agenda. However, Stuart recognized the opportunity to shape its placeand form on that agenda. According to planning statements, the vision for the NSNTmeeting in Monterey was to ‘apply knowledge and lessons learned to enable the ThirdSector to transform itself through information technology and the Internet’. This visiondrew heavily from Stuart’s emancipatory rhetoric of the Circuit Rider Movement andwas anchored to a civic order of worth, which indicated that claims made in the NSNTpresupposed that the collective good took primacy over individual desires (Boltanski andThévenot, 2006, p. 185). In this instance, Stuart’s strategy was again to inscribe theCircuit Rider ethos of technology for social justice into the NSNT, turning it fromaccount to convention, as powerful actors in the field came to associate Stuart’s inter-pretation of technology with the way technology assistance ought to be done. Theassociation was about naturalizing Stuart’s account, such that foundations and otheractors in the field would see Circuit Riding as the way to do technology assistance in thenon-profit sector.

The catchphrase – and rhetoric – Stuart espoused for the NSNT meetings was‘chaordic’, a term the founding members of the initiative borrowed from a FastCompany article about Dee Hock. ‘Chaordic’ ostensibly described a new set of organiz-ing principles, based on ‘the promise of a shining synthesis of chaos and order’ (Waldrop,1996, p. 75). The NSNT organizers linked to an electronic copy of the article on theirwebsite, providing a bridge between accounts proffered in different fields. The term‘chaordic’ expressed the radical non-hierarchical network principles that constituted oneof the management fads among those involved with the Internet boom. To the NSNTorganizers, especially Stuart, ‘chaordic’ reflected the ‘revolutionary power’ of informa-tion technology, i.e. the order that emerges from the anarchy of the Internet. The termalso reflected the hope that the NSNT would provide an emergent order for the

P.-B. McInerney1104


otherwise anarchic Circuit Riders. The Circuit Riders understood information technol-ogy as revolutionary in two senses of the term: technology would (1) radically alter theway non-profits worked; and (2) fundamentally change the way society was itself orga-nized. As a set of organizing principles, ‘chaordic organization’ jibed well with theconventions Stuart was trying to establish. Anchored to what Boltanski and Thévenot(2006) call an inspired order of worth, Stuart was attempting to align technological andsocial revolutions by associating the meaning of Circuit Riding (as promoting progressivesocial change) with its organizational form (radically non-hierarchical, loosely couplednetwork).

Showdown at Kykuit

The turning point for the Circuit Rider Movement came on the weekend of 3–6December 1998. By then, Stuart had spent a year working on the NSNT initiative,enrolling foundations and leaders in the non-profit sector. Now it was time to bring it alltogether. He invited 20 foundation officers and corporate representatives to the Rocke-feller Estate and conference centre in Kykuit, New York to unveil the National Strategyfor Nonprofit Technology in its contemporary, though inchoate, form. The websiteannouncing the event presented its focus: ‘The Camp will feature presentations about theNational Strategy as it has been developed to date, as well as engage you in discussionsabout how to make technology assistance even more responsive to the burgeoningtechnology needs of the nonprofit sector. Since the National Strategy is nearing comple-tion, your input now will have the greatest influence on how the technology capacity ofthe nonprofit sector is developed in the next several years’ (Stuart, 1999). Stuart reasonedthat by bringing foundation officers together before the plan was completed, he couldenrol them in the project. He manoeuvred to align their interests with his own byconvincing foundation officers that they had a stake in the process and therefore theoutcome. According to Stuart’s strategy, this would make the foundations more likely tosupport his account, materially and symbolically, which would be critical to convention-alizing it.

Through the Rockefeller Family Fund, Stuart was able to reserve the PocanticoConference Center at the Rockefeller Estate in Kykuit, New York for the three-daymeeting, evidence of Stuart’s position in the field and how it afforded him the ability tomobilize resources. Meeting attendees included several of the key NSNT planningpartners as well as programme officers from many non-profit foundations. Some of therepresentatives came from foundations that had been involved with the NSNT from theoutset, such as the Rockefeller Family Fund, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Charles StewartMott Foundation, and the W. Alton Jones Foundation. Representatives from Microsoft,though having come later to the initiative, were invited as well. New to the initiative wererepresentatives from the Hewlett, IBM, W.K. Kellogg and Surdna Foundations; theOpen Society Institute; Merrill Lynch Philanthropic Financial Services; the BeldonFund; and the Hewlett-Packard Company.

Though the meeting began auspiciously, dialogue degraded quickly. Many of thefoundation officers did not respond well to the NSNT’s ‘chaordic’ rhetoric and idealisticvision. By the end of the meeting’s first day, several foundation directors simply left.



Others were threatening to leave. Vince Stehle, a programme officer at the SurdnaFoundation who attended the meeting explained, ‘I think the thrust of it was that therewere some really interesting things going on there, but it was a mess of a meeting. I thinkeveryone that attended found that is was a mess in terms of the execution of it, the vibe’(Personal interview, 20 July 2004). Joan Fanning, who attended the meeting representingMicrosoft and her own NTAP, NPower, described the reactions of programme officers:‘a number of funders, from what I have heard, thought that it was a bit of a fiasco. . . Rob [Stuart] and Richard Civille were just talking about non-concrete and interest-ing things like chaordic systems. How do you make this work? You have this group offoundation officers that are there for three days. They want to leave with an actionableagenda. It blew up. The Ford person left on day one. A number of funders at the time,Ed Skloot [from Surdna] were against funding anything in the field [of non-profittechnology assistance]. I started to get agitated too’ (Personal interview, 9 April 2002).Vince Stehle adds, ‘there was some high-level participation and the invitation soundedlike there was going to be something to sign off on. And their experience of it was muchmore like a brainstorming kind of thing. I remember quite distinctly the feeling on thepart of senior folks that this is not fully cooked. I think it might have been my boss [EdSkloot] who said, “you do not invite people of our rank to a brainstorming session” ’(Personal interview, 20 July 2004).

With the meeting quickly shifting away from order and towards chaos, Fanningrecognized a political opportunity to take charge. The opportunity for Fanning laid inrecognizing that the foundation representatives, while ostensibly open to Stuart’saccount of non-profit technology, did not accept the civic moral anchor, or order ofworth, to which they were attached. Fanning sensed the foundation representativesmight be more open to the market and industrial orders of worth she espoused inNPower’s organizing principles. This would be particularly true given the circum-stances: framed properly, her account as a nascent convention might be viewed notonly as a viable alternative to Stuart’s ‘chaordic’ vision, but as a more appropriateconvention for the non-profit sector. As Fanning explains, ‘I could really understandwhere they [the foundation program officers] were coming from and so I started toplay a facilitator role, like “OK, it sounds like the path this meeting was not working.What can we do?” ’ (Personal interview, 9 April 2004). Having attracted the attentionof the foundation officers in the room, Fanning abruptly shifted the conversation from‘chaordic’ organization to what she called ‘concrete, actionable’ agenda items. Withher pragmatic approach, she presented an alternative account about how to provideeffective technology assistance to the non-profit sector, one expressed by NPower.Unlike the Circuit Riders, whose progressive and revolutionary accounts wereanchored to civic and inspired orders of worth, Fanning’s account was anchored towhat Boltanski and Thévenot (2006) call industrial and market orders of worth, whichvenerate efficiency, competency, and financial measures of success. Her pragmaticsresounded with the foundation officers, who themselves were in the midst of overseeinga transformation in the non-profit sector towards adopting commercial and business-like values (Weisbrod, 1998). In other words, following the trend in the non-profitsector towards more ‘business-like’ organizing principles (Dart, 2004a, 2004b), thefoundation officers were predisposed to accounts anchored to industrial and market

P.-B. McInerney1106


orders of worth, because they had come to value such accounts in their grant makingactivities.

During the meeting at Kykuit, Stuart and Fanning had presented accounts anchoredto different orders of worth (see Table II for a summary of accounts). Stuart’s account oftechnology in the non-profit sector as promoting social justice failed because it wasanchored to a civic order of worth that did not align well with the industrial and marketorders of worth the foundation world had recently began to employ to justify the newdirection they were heading. Taking advantage of these ascendant orders of worth,Fanning recognized a political opportunity to advance an alternative account of tech-nology as efficiency, an account anchored to orders of worth that aligned well with thefoundation officers’ understanding of how their own work ought to be done. Within thebrief time and confined space of a single field-configuring event, Fanning became aninfluential institutional entrepreneur because she recognized a political opportunityduring which she was able to align her account with shifting moral orders in thefoundation world (Hwang and Powell, 2005; Rao and Giorgi, 2006). While Stuart waslocked into treating technology as promoting social and organizational revolution andthe Circuit Rider model as a way of expressing this account throughout the NSNTplanning process, Fanning had no stake in the prevailing ‘pattern of value commitments’(Greenwood and Hinings, 1996, p. 1035) and could frame her account to take advantageof the political opportunity presented to her.

Table II. Summary of competing accounts by institutional entrepreneur

Account of non-profit technology Technology = Social Justice Technology = Efficiency

Orders of worth (moral anchor)(Boltanski and Thévenot, 2006)

Civic, inspired Market, industrial

Institutional entrepreneur Rob Stuart Joan FanningInstitutional position of entrepreneur Insider OutsiderExpression of account/organizational

modelCircuit Rider NPower

Established 1997 1999Mode of institutional action ‘Chaordic’ organizing Pragmatic actionInstitutional logic Community CommercialBasic organizing principles 3rd party payer model

for service delivery,foundation supported,social justice, equality

Fee for service, foundationsubsidized, organizationaleffectiveness, fiscal sustainability

Political principles Progressive left AgnosticOrganizational form Loosely coupled network,

non-hierarchical, socialmovement, ties to non-profitfoundations and socialactivists

Bureaucratic, with decentralizedaffiliated hierarchical, 501(c)(3)corporations, ties to for-profitcorporations

Measure of effectiveness Social change EfficiencyRhetoric Revolutionary Pragmatic



The Aftermath

At Kykuit, foundations officers shifted their alliances from Stuart to Fanning. ‘For meand for NPower, that meeting was very, very helpful’, Fanning recalls (Personal interview9 April 2004). Deborah Strauss, the director of another leading NTAP in the field recalls,‘There were pretty strong differences of vision among the leadership . . . Joan Fanningbasically stepped in and pulled the [NSNT] document into shape and carried it further,and . . . she was the savior’ (Personal interview, 4 November 2003). By the end ofthe meeting, foundation officers pledged to support the initiative only if Fanning took thehelm of the NSNT. Afterward, Fanning rewrote the NSNT vision statement over thenext several months before handing it over to a colleague for completion and execution.She then turned her attention to raising funds for the fledgling non-profit technologyassistance provider she had outlined in her business plan. With the support of Microsoft,she began assembling the resources to start NPower. With the connections she earned atKykuit, the remainder of the start-up funding came easy. By early 2000, NPower hadlaunched and was on its way towards becoming the most successful NTAP in thecountry. NPower continued to attract the attention of foundations and non-profitsthroughout the sector. Within one year of operation, the organization had an operatingbudget of over $1.5 million. With subsequent funding from NSNT supporters Microsoftand Surdna, NPower continued expanding its operations, establishing 13 affiliates in asmany cities over the next two years. Before long, NPower had become the yardstickagainst which all other NTAPs were being measured. To attract resources and establishlegitimacy, Circuit Rider organizations began adopting facets of the account that madeNPower so successful. The account expressed by the NPower model had become aconvention.

Epilogue: Whither the Circuit Riders after Kykuit

In an interview, Stuart described the Kykuit meeting as ‘ “difficult” . . . a big bump in theroad for organizing the funding community to back this thing [his account of CircuitRiding] as it goes forward’ (Personal interview, 21 May 2004). He blamed the outcomeof the meeting on the foundation officers in attendance who failed to grasp ‘the trans-formative stuff ’. A journalist for the Philanthropy News Network reported:

The National Strategy has big plans mixing visionary ideas with practical solutions tohelp nonprofits put technology to productive and innovative use. One idea would beto create a barter system to exchange tech skills, tools and know-how. Another wouldbe to create a nonprofit mega-site on the Web. At Kykuit, some of those loftier ideasran into tough scrutiny. ‘The goal was engagement’, says Rob Stuart, a NationalStrategy partner who organized the retreat and directs the Rockefeller TechnologyProject of the Rockefeller Family Fund. ‘We did not get there’. (Cohen, 1999)

Fanning rewrote the final version of the NSNT, saying ‘we made it more actionable.So, one of the steps was to have a process with providers . . . to have a formal way toshare promising practices, coordinate the field, and accelerate the impact’ (Personal

P.-B. McInerney1108


interview, 9 April 2004). That ‘formal way’ was the creation of a trade association forNTAPs, including the Circuit Riders, called the Nonprofit Technology EnterpriseNetwork (N-TEN). The creation of a trade association signalled the institutionalizationof the NTAP field (Greenwood et al., 2002). Since Fanning rewrote the NSNT, sheinstilled the same market and industrial orders of worth in N-TEN’s organizing prin-ciples as she had in NPower. A cursory glance at the N-TEN planning document revealsit to have much more in common with NPower’s business plan than the original NSNTplanning document. For example, the original NSNT planning document made nomention of membership, opting instead for universal inclusiveness. In contrast, theN-TEN planning document presents a tiered membership model much like the onearticulated in NPower’s business plan. NSNT’s original guiding principles – transpar-ency, open systems, fair exchange, and fair compensation – remain in the final text,though they are buried in the middle of the document and presented in a smaller font.

In a form of planned isomorphism, foundations supporting the initiative chargedNPower with overseeing N-TEN’s establishment, including its finances. As Fanningexplains, ‘he [Vince Stehle of Surdna] was pretty much at the time only comfortable withNPower being the fiscal agent because we had a reputation for following through andgetting stuff done’ (Personal interview, 9 April 2004). Fanning was thus able to leverage hersuccess at Kykuit into shaping the entire field of non-profit technology assistance and thedirection of institutionalization it took. NPower capitalized on its position as financialoverseer of N-TEN. Fanning took a board position, as did Jane Meseck from Microsoftand Vincent Stehle from the Surdna Foundation. Rob Stuart reported in an interview thatNPower often received funding that should have gone to N-TEN. In 2003, NPower andN-TEN competed for a large grant from telecommunications giant SBC. NPower won.

The Rockefeller Family Fund, citing budget cuts, spun off the Rockefeller TechnologyProject. It was reborn as Tech Rocks. With Stuart at the helm, Tech Rocks took a hybridform, blending many of the Circuit Riders’ ideals with NPower’s organizing principles:it served politically progressive causes, but as a non-profit consulting firm, charged feesfor the services it provided. By 2001, however, Tech Rocks closed its doors due to aninability to generate revenue. At the behest of its board, the W. Alton Jones Foundation,which established the model and hosted the first Circuit Rider project and programme,was divested into several smaller foundations, none of which subsequently supportedin-house Circuit Rider programmes. Smaller Circuit Riding organizations subscribing toStuart’s early account also folded, such as the LINC Project in New York City, whichmanaged to continue operating until August 2006. MediaJumpstart, a Circuit Riderorganization working exclusively with social justice groups, responded to the institutionalshift by radicalizing itself as the May First Technology Collective. It ceased operating inearly 2007. The institutionalized field of non-profit technology assistance, whichfavoured accounts anchored to market and industrial orders of worth, left no room forthe civic and inspired accounts of the Circuit Rider Movement.

DISCUSSION

In this paper, I have shown how field-configuring events are loci for conventionalizingaccounts. I demonstrated how the concept of accounts is useful for understanding a



strategy by which institutional entrepreneurs exploit position, context, and charisma toshape emergent fields and influence institutional change to their advantage. As Chileset al. (2004) note, orthodox theoretical perspectives, such as new institutionalism, havenot tackled the problem of field emergence. This paper contributes to the heterodox studyof field emergence theoretically and empirically. Theoretically, I offer a theory ofaccounts building on insights from the Economic Sociology of Conventions (Biggart andBeamish, 2003). Empirically, I build on DiMaggio’s (1991) historical analysis of fieldformation, supplementing historical data with primary qualitative data to connect theactions of institutional entrepreneurs with their outcomes.

The theory of accounts I presented in this paper builds on the Economic Sociology ofConventions and provides an alternative to theories based on institutional logics. In aseminal essay on institutional logics, Friedland and Alford (1991, p. 248) define institu-tional logics as ‘a set of material practices and symbolic constructions – which constitutesits organizing principles and which is available to organizations and individuals toelaborate’. The concept is best elucidated in Thornton (2004), who describes howinstitutional logics direct actors’ attention towards certain objects in the environment andaway from others, influencing decision-making, leadership, and strategy. Though severalcompeting institutional logics may exist within a field at any given time, Thornton (2004)contends that certain logics will prevail eventually. In her groundbreaking study ofhigher-education publishing firms, she finds that an editorial logic that favours academicquality eventually gives way to a market logic that favours profitability and its associativebehaviours and strategies. When the logics in which institutions are embedded change,actors are given new rules to follow and subsequently alter their behaviour accordingly(Galvin, 2002; Lounsbury et al., 2002). Over time, the changes in institutional logicsbring about new organizing principles and dictate new ways for actors to performsuccessfully and evaluate what constitutes success (Thornton and Ocasio, 1999).However, explanations relying on institutional logics fail to recognize the source ofinstitutional change. Relying predominantly on historical data, scholars infer that insti-tutional logics changed, but cannot specify the mechanisms by which alternative logicsemerge or how they are mobilized.

The theory of accounts provides an alternative. Rather than singular logics producingdominant evaluative principles, the theory of accounts is based on the idea that multipleevaluative principles can effectively coexist (and compete) in any given field. Employingorders of worth instead of institutional logics allows the theory of accounts to capturecoexisting evaluative frameworks and show how actors mobilize them at different pointsin time in an attempt to assert their interests. The case presented in this paper demon-strates how multiple orders of worth are in play and can be called upon at any givenmoment: the same industrial order of worth used to justify the original WAJF CircuitRider account is invoked again by Fanning at Kykuit. Additionally, by combininghistorical and ethnographic data, the theory of accounts I present in this paper connectshistorical actions to contemporary outcomes.

The findings of this study must be understood in light of its limitations. The processualaccount I provide, while rich, requires further testing in other settings if scholars are tofully understand the role of individual action in field emergence and change duringfield-configuring events. More studies of field-configuring events are necessary to isolate

P.-B. McInerney1110


specific contexts in which institutional entrepreneurs can advance and conventionalizetheir accounts. The findings of this paper may be limited to nascent organizational fields.During the time examined in this paper, the field of NTAPs was emergent and had notbeen institutionalized. Almost anything goes in such a setting, as legitimate practices andevaluative criteria for judging them are underdeveloped. This pre-institutional contextgave Stuart much latitude in shaping and advancing his account. Plying his charisma andpositional capital, Stuart was also able to accrue and mobilize the resources necessary toadvance his account (Oliver and Montgomery, 2008). In more institutionalized settings,actors face many more constraints in terms of their ability to take advantage of context,position, or charisma. Additionally, in highly institutionalized settings, far fewer actorswill be empowered to assemble and leverage the mass of resources necessary to influencethe direction of field formation. Future studies should apply the theory of accounts todetermine the degree to which actors can conventionalize accounts in institutionalizedfields.

Despite these limitations, the theory of accounts provides robust conceptual tools toexplain the role of individual actors in effecting institutional change by showing howactors generate the rules of the game relationally. The theory of accounts connectschange taking place at the cognitive level (see Oliver and Montgomery, 2008) to field-level dynamics. My approach takes advantage of the discursive nature of organizationalfields. Actors make claims, articulated in accounts, which they then justify by securingtheir accounts to moral anchors, or orders of worth. During field-configuring events,institutional entrepreneurs distribute accounts in order to get more powerful actors toadopt them and move them towards becoming conventions. An entrepreneur’s ability tosuccessfully conventionalize their account depends on institutional context (Greenwoodand Suddaby, 2006), field position (Battilana, 2006), and personal attributes, like cha-risma (Fligstein, 1997).

FCEs provide the loci for actors to shape organizational fields and the institutions thatgovern them. This is particularly true for nascent fields. Seemingly minor actions duringthe early stages of field emergence can indelibly shape institutions that subsequently arise(Armstrong, 2005). FCEs convene multifarious institutional actors, affording politicalopportunities for institutional entrepreneurs equipped to take advantage of them. In thecase presented here, institutional entrepreneurs took advantage of political opportunitiesby articulating and justifying their accounts by anchoring them to situationally-appropriate orders of worth and presenting organizational models by which thoseaccounts can be realized. Institutional entrepreneurs are successful insofar as they areable to convince powerful actors in the field to accept and promote their accounts,making them conventions. Conventionalizing accounts can take place gradually,through repetition and habituation, like Stuart’s activities to advance the Circuit Rideraccount. Alternatively, actors can conventionalize their accounts quickly, during criticalmoments, like Fanning talking advantage of the disastrous Kykuit meeting.

Garud (2008) and Latour (2005) show that stability in fields is an accomplishmentpredicated on the coordinated efforts of many actors. Thus, fields are often unstable andactors within them are subject to conditions of uncertainty. In his studies of EasternEuropean firms, Stark (Stark 2001; Stark and Bruszt, 1998) demonstrated how entre-preneurs exploit uncertainty by keeping multiple orders of worth at play, while not



committing to any of them. Such a strategy prevents other actors in the field from easilydenouncing one’s claims. During critical moments, like FCEs, actors are called to puttheir cards on the table and justify their accounts with specific orders of worth (Boltanskiand Thévenot, 1999). These necessarily risky occasions present political opportunities foractors cognizant of the order of worth accepted by actors in a particular situation.

Once accounts are accepted as convention, they begin to institutionalize the prac-tices represented in them. As Douglas (1986, p. 52) writes in her seminal work, ‘theinstitution survives the stage of being fragile conventions: they are founded in natureand therefore, in reason. Being naturalized, they are part of the order of the universeand so are ready to stand as the grounds of the argument’. In other words, institutionsarise from conventions as the latter become grounded in naturalistic explanations.Therefore, by conventionalizing accounts entrepreneurs begin to institutionalizecertain practices, which further reinforces their leadership positions in the field. Asloci for conventionalizing accounts, FCEs are the stage on which field-level conten-tions play out and ultimately the setting for field emergence and the formation ofinstitutions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the editors of this special issue, Alan D. Meyer and Joe Lampel, as well as the anonymous reviewersfor their extensive comments. I also thank the Circuit Rider community, especially Gavin Clabaugh, RobStuart, and Dirk Slater, as well as the staff and management of NPower in Seattle and New York, especiallyJoan Fanning, Barbara Chang, and Stephanie Creaturo. Their patience, generosity, and time made thisresearch possible. David Stark, Nicole P. Marwell, William McAllister, and members of the Center onOrganizational Innovation at Columbia University provided comments and suggestions on earlier drafts ofthis paper. Jennifer E. Mosley supplied feedback, support, and encouragement throughout the writing andrevision process.

REFERENCES

Anand, N. and Jones, B. C. (2008). ‘Tournament rituals, category dynamics and field configuration: the caseof the Booker Prize’. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1036–60.

Anand, N. and Watson, M. R. (2004). ‘Tournament rituals in the evolution of fields: the case of the GrammyAwards’. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 59–80.

Armstrong, E. A. (2005). ‘From struggle to settlement: the crystallization of a field of lesbian/gay organiza-tions in San Francisco, 1969–1973’. In Davis, G. F., McAdam, D., Scott, W. R. and Zald, M. N. (Eds),Social Movements and Organization Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press, 161–88.

Barley, S. R. (1990). ‘Images of imaging: notes on doing longitudinal fieldwork’. Organization Science, 1,220–47.

Barley, S. R. and Tolbert, P. S. (1997). ‘Institutionalization and structuration: studying the links betweenaction and institution’. Organization Studies, 18, 93–117.

Battilana, J. (2006). ‘Agency and institution: the enabling role of individuals’ social position’. Organization, 13,653–76.

Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.New York: Anchor Books.

Bielefeld, W. (1992). ‘Funding uncertainty and nonprofit strategies of the 1980s’. Nonprofit Management andLeadership, 2, 381–401.

Biggart, N. W. and Beamish, T. D. (2003). ‘The economic sociology of conventions: habit, custom, practice,and routine in market order’. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 443–64.

Boltanski, L. and Thévenot, L. (1991). De La Justification. Paris: Gallimard.

P.-B. McInerney1112


Boltanski, L. and Thévenot, L. (1999). ‘The sociology of critical capacity’. European Journal of Social Theory, 2,359–77.

Boltanski, L. and Thévenot, L. (2006). On Justification: Economies of Worth, translated by Porter, C. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.

Brint, S. and Karabel, J. (1991). ‘Institutional origins and transformations: the case of American communitycolleges’. In Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. (Eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 311–36.

Bruun, H. and Langlais, R. (2003). ‘On the embodied nature of action’. Acta Sociologica, 46, 31–49.Burawoy, M. (1998). ‘The extended case method’. Sociological Theory, 16, 4–33.Campbell, J. L. (2005). ‘Where do we stand? Common mechanisms in organizations and social movements’.

In Davis, G. F., McAdam, D., Scott, W. R. and Zald, M. N. (Eds), Social Movements and OrganizationTheory. New York: Cambridge University Press, 41–68.

Chiles, T. H., Meyer, A. D. and Hench, T. J. (2004). ‘Organizational emergence: the origin and transfor-mation of Branson, Missouri’s musical theaters’. Organization Science, 15, 499–519.

Cohen, T. (1999). ‘Wake-up call for national tech strategy’. http://www.pnnonline.org/print.php?sid=3752(accessed 24 May 2004).

Corder, K. (2001). ‘Acquiring new technology: comparing nonprofit and public sector agencies’. Adminis-tration and Society, 33, 194–219.

Dacin, T. M., Goodstein, J. and Scott, W. R. (2002). ‘Institutional theory and institutional change: Intro-duction to the Special Research Forum’. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 45–56.

Dart, R. (2004a). ‘Being “business-like” in a nonprofit organization: a grounded and inductive typology’.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 290–310.

Dart, R. (2004b). ‘The legitimacy of social enterprise’. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 4, 411–24.DiMaggio, P. (1988). ‘Interest and agency in institutional theory’. In Zucker, L. G. (Ed.), Institutional Patterns

and Organizations: Culture and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.DiMaggio, P. (1991). ‘Constructing an organizational field as a professional project: U.S. art museums,

1920–1940’. In Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. (Eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 267–92.

DiMaggio, P. (1997). ‘Culture and cognition’. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263–87.DiMaggio, P. J. and Anheier, H. (1990). ‘The sociology of nonprofit organizations and sectors’. Annual Review

of Sociology, 16, 137–59.DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. W. (1983). ‘The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective

rationality in organizational fields’. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–60.Dorado, S. (2005). ‘Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening’. Organization Studies, 26,

386.Douglas, M. (1986). How Institutions Think. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I. and Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University

of Chicago Press.Emirbayer, M. and Mische, A. (1998). ‘What is agency?’. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 925–1023.Fligstein, N. (1997). ‘Social skill and institutional theory’. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 397–406.Fligstein, N. (2001). The Architecture of Markets: An Economic Sociology of Twenty-First-Century Capitalist Societies.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Friedland, R. and Alford, R. R. (1991). ‘Bringing society back. Symbols, practices and institutional contra-

dictions’. In Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. (Eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 232–63.

Galaskiewicz, J. and Bielefeld, W. (1998). Nonprofit Organizations in an Age of Uncertainty: A Study of OrganizationalChange. New York: A. de Gruyter.

Galvin, T. L. (2002). ‘Examining institutional change: evidence from the founding dynamics of U.S. healthcare interest associations’. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 673–96.

Garfinkel, H. (1984). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Garud, R. (2008). ‘Conferences as venues for the configuration of emerging organizational fields: the case of

cochlear implants’. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1061–88.Gilbert, M. (1998). ‘Interview with Rob Stuart of the Rockefeller Family Fund’. Nonprofit Online News.

http://news.gilbert.org/features/featureReader$3583 (accessed 9 October 2002).Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.

Chicago, IL: Aldine.



http://www.pnnonline.org/print.php?sid=3752

http://news.gilbert.org/features/featureReader$3583

Glynn, M. A. (2008). ‘Configuring the field of play: how hosting the Olympic Games impacts civiccommunity’. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1117–46.

Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C. R. (1996). ‘Understanding radical organizational change: bringing togetherthe old and new institutionalism’. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1022–54.

Greenwood, R. and Suddaby, R. (2006). ‘Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: the big fiveaccounting firms’. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 27–48.

Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R. and Hinings, C. R. (2002). ‘Theorizing change: the role of professionalassociations in the transformation of institutionalized fields’. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 58–80.

Harding, D. J., Fox, C. and Mehta, J. D. (2002). ‘Studying rare events through qualitative case studies:lessons from a study of rampage school shootings’. Sociological Methods & Research, 31, 174–217.

Hodder, I. (2000). ‘The interpretation of documents and material culture’. In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln,Y. S. (Eds), The Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 703–15.

Hoffman, A. J. and Ocasio, W. (2001). ‘Not all events are attended equally: toward a middle-range theoryof industry attention to external events’. Organization Science, 12, 414–34.

Howard, P. N. (2002). ‘Network ethnography and the hypermedia organization: new media, new organi-zations, new methods’. New Media & Society, 4, 550–74.

Hwang, H. and Powell, W. W. (2005). ‘Institutions and entrepreneurship’. In Alvarez, S. A., Agarwal, R. andSorenson, O. (Eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Springer,201–32.

Lamertz, K., Heugens, P. P. M. A.R. and Calmet, L. (2005). ‘The configuration of organizational imagesamong firms in the Canadian beer brewing industry’. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 817–43.

Lamont, M. and Molnar, V. (2002). ‘The study of boundaries in the social sciences’. Annual Review of Sociology,28, 167–95.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. New York: Oxford.Lazega, E. and Favereau, O. (2002). ‘Introduction’. In Favereau, O. and Lazega, E. (Eds), Conventions and

Structures in Economic Organization: Markets, Networks and Hierarchies. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar,1–28.

Leca, B. and Naccache, P. (2006). ‘A critical realist approach to institutional entrepreneurship’. Organization,13, 627–51.

Lounsbury, M., Geraci, H. and Waismel-Manor, R. (2002). ‘Policy discourse, logics, and practice standards:centralizing the solid-waste management field’. In Hoffman, A. J. and Ventresca, M. J. (Eds), Organi-zations, Policy, and the Natural Environment: Institutional and Strategic Perspectives. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press, 237–345.

McInerney, P.-B. (2007). ‘Geeks for good: technology evangelism and the role of Circuit Riders in itsadoption among nonprofits’. In Cortes, M. and Rafter, K. M. (Eds), Nonprofits and Technology: EmergingResearch for Usable Knowledge. Chicago, IL: Lyceum, 148–62.

MediaJumpStart (2002). ‘Media Jump Start’s vision’. http://www.mediajumpstart.org/index.php?name=vision (accessed 3 March 2002; website no longer active).

Meyer, A. D., Gaba, V. and Colwell, K. A. (2005). ‘Organizing far from equilibrium: nonlinear change inorganizational fields’. Organization Science, 16, 456–73.

Meyer, R. E. (2006). ‘Visiting relatives: current developments in the new sociology of knowledge’. Organi-zation, 13, 725–38.

Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. (1977). ‘Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and cer-emony’. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–63.

Mills, C. W. (1940). ‘Situated actions and vocabularies of motive’. American Sociological Review, 5, 904–13.Moore, K. (1996). ‘Organizing integrity: American science and the creating of public interest organizations,

1955–1975’. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1592–627.Munir, K. A. and Phillips, N. (2005). ‘The birth of the “Kodak Moment”: institutional entrepreneurship and

the adoption of new technologies’. Organization Studies, 26, 1665–87.Mutch, A., Delbridge, R. and Ventresca, M. (2006). ‘Situating organizational action: the relational sociology

of organizations’. Organization, 13, 607–25.Oliver, A. L. and Montgomery, K. (2008). ‘Using field-configuring events for sense-making: a cognitive

network approach’. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1147–67.Planning Partners (1999). ‘National Strategy for Nonprofit Technology draft vision document’. http://

web.archive.org/web/20001215145900/www.rffund.org/strategy (accessed 28 July 2004; website nolonger active).

P.-B. McInerney1114


http://www.mediajumpstart.org

http://web.archive.org/web/20001215145900/www.rffund.org/strategy

http://web.archive.org/web/20001215145900/www.rffund.org/strategy

Polletta, F. (2006). It Was Like a Fever: Stories in Protest and Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Ragin, C. C. (1997). ‘Turning the tables: how case-oriented research challenges variable-oriented research’.

Comparative Social Research, 16, 27–42.Rao, H. (1994). ‘The social construction of reputation: certification contests, legitimation, and the survival

of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895–1912’. Strategic Management Journal, 15,29–44.

Rao, H. and Giorgi, S. (2006). ‘Code breaking: how entrepreneurs exploit cultural logics to generateinstitutional change’. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 269–304.

Rawls, A. W. (2002). ‘Editor’s introduction’. In Rawls, A. W. (Ed.), Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working outDurkheim’s Aphorism. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1–64.

Ryan, G. W. and Bernard, H. R. (2000). ‘Data management and analysis methods’. In Denzin, N. K. andLincoln, Y. S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 769–801.

Sahlin-Andersson, K. (1996). ‘Imitating by editing success: the construction of organizational fields’. InCzarniawski, B. and Sevon, G. (Eds), Translating Organizational Change. New York: Walter de Gruyter,69–92.

Schatzman, L. and Strauss, A. L. (1973). Field Research: Strategies for a Natural Sociology. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Schmidt, M. (1997). ‘Habitus revisited’. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 444–54.Scott, M. B. and Lyman, S. M. (1968). ‘Accounts’. American Sociological Review, 33, 46–62.Scott, W. R. (2003). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Star, S. L. (1999). ‘The ethnography of infrastructure’. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 377–91.Stark, D. (2001). ‘Ambiguous assets for uncertain environments: heterarchy in postsocialist firms’. In

DiMaggio, P. (Ed.), The 21st Century Firm: Changing Economic Organizations in International Perspective.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 69–104.

Stark, D. and Bruszt, L. (1998). Postsocialist Pathways: Transforming Politics and Property in East Central Europe. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Steinmetz, G. (2004). ‘Odious comparisons: incommensurability, the case study, and “small N’s” in sociol-ogy’. Sociological Theory, 22, 371–400.

Storper, M. and Salais, R. (1997). Worlds of Production: The Action Framework of the Economy. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Strang, D. and Soule, S. A. (1998). ‘Diffusion in organizations and social movements: from hybrid corn topoison pills’. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 265–90.

Stuart, R. (1998). ‘Foundation Commentary: He wants to hold your hand’. http://int1/cof.org/foundationnews/august1998/commentary.html (accessed 29 August 2002; website no longer active).

Stuart, R. (1999). ‘Computer Camp: About the Camp’. http://web.archive.org/web/19990508064330/www.rffund.org/camp/about2.html (accessed 30 July 2004).

Thévenot, L. (2001). ‘Organized complexity: conventions of coordination and the composition of economicarrangements’. European Journal of Social Theory, 4, 405–25.

Thévenot, L., Moody, M. and Lafaye, C. (2000). ‘Forms of valuing nature: arguments and modes ofjustification in French and American environmental disputes’. In Lamont, M. and Thévenot, L. (Eds),Rethinking Comparative Cultural Sociology: Repertoires of Evaluation in France and the United States. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 229–72.

Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from Culture: Institutional Logics and Organizational Decisions in Higher EducationPublishing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Thornton, P. H. and Ocasio, W. (1999). ‘Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power inorganizations: executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990’. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 105, 801–43.

Tilly, C. (2006). Why? What Happens When People Give Reasons . . . And Why. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Troast Jr, J. G., Hoffman, A. J., Riley, H. C. and Bazerman, M. H. (2002). ‘Institutions as barriers andenablers to negotiated agreements: institutional entrepreneurship and the plum creek habitat conser-vation plan’. In Hoffman, A. J. (Ed.), Organizations, Policy, and the Natural Environment: Institutional andStrategic Perspectives. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 235–61.

Van de Ven, A. H. and Huber, G. P. (1990). ‘Longitudinal field research methods for studying processes oforganizational change’. Organization Science, 1, 213–19.

Van Maanen, J. (1979a). ‘Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: a preface’. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 24, 520–6.



http://int1/cof.org

http://web.archive.org/web/19990508064330

http://www.rffund.org/camp/about2.html

Van Maanen, J. (1979b). ‘The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24,539–50.

Waldrop, M. M. (1996). ‘The trillion-dollar vision of Dee Hock: the corporate radical who organized visawants to dis-organize your company’. Fast Company, 1, 75.

Weisbrod, B. A. (1998). To Profit or Not to Profit: The Commercial Transformation of the Nonprofit Sector. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Westenholz, A. and Dobbin, F. (2006). ‘Institutions in the making: identity, power and the emergence of neworganizational forms’. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 889–96.

P.-B. McInerney1116


showdown at kykuit: field-conÞguring events as loci for ... paper.pdfshowdown at kykuit:...

Documents