ORGANIZATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONAL FIELDS
An organizational field refers to the entire network of interdependent actors and organizations that comprise a recognized area of institutional life (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991; Scott, 2001; Fligstein and McAdam, 2012).
Although organizations have much in common, they differ depending on their specific purposes and the circumstances in which they operate. Organizations, moreover, are in a continuous state of flux. Constituted through human interactions, organizational goals and relationships are constantly being reinterpreted and renegotiated by diverse organizational actors, each with their own values, interests, and agendas (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991, p. 9). Thus, over time, an organization takes on a life of its own (Weick, 1995). To survive, an organization must be responsive not only to its own internal dynamics but also to external developments and events. Hence, its effectiveness and ability to survive depends on how well it can manage the multiple, and at times competing, demands of those upon whom it depends for resources and support (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003). Thus, much of an organization’s structure and behavior can be explained in terms of how the organization is situated and networked to meet these needs (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991; Amin and Hausner, 1997; Gulati and Gargiulo, 1999; Scott, 2001).Needless to say, given the complexity involved, organizations can hardly attend to all surrounding occurrences and events. Rather, organizations are loosely coupled to their environments. Thus, they typically attune themselves to a limited number of other likeminded organizations - those upon which they are most dependent. In effect, organizations construct their own ‘relevant’ relationships and environments (White, 1992; Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003). This networked environment, which is situated at the level between the organization and its overarching institutional environment, constitutes an ‘organizational field’.
Organizational fields emerge over time, as interdependent organizations act together to create stability within their domains. In the process, they develop a set of structured practices and patterns of interactions, as well as a common meaning system unique to their institutional space. Once taken for granted, these practices recreate and reconstruct the existing order of things (White, 1992; Fligstein, 2001). It is this structuration of the field that allows for its governance. Typically, the most powerful incumbents dominate the field, defining the boundaries and meaning of the space as well as the roles and relationships of its occupants (Fligstein, 2001; Fligstein and McAdam, 2012). Weaker parties generally accept their inferior status, given their dependence and the benefits that accrue from participation in the field. Incumbents can, moreover, strengthen their positions if they can link their claims to general societal understandings about how things ought to be done (Schwartz, 1997, p. 236). Note, however, that increased structuration cannot only generate consensus, but also dissent (Fligstein and McAdam, 2012). Hence, although organizational fields are relatively stable, they are subject to effective challenges and transformations over the long term.
This conceptualization provides a common framework for analyzing each episode of the Internet’s evolution. For each case, the chapter identifies the specific technologies involved; the resource requirements necessary to put these technologies in place; and the costs of developing and deploying the technologies, as well as how these costs are allocated across the field. Also, for each case the chapter characterizes the structure of the field, how decisions are made, the culture and internal practices associated with the field, and the field’s relationship to its institutional surroundings. In addition, each case describes the dynamics of the field and the forces that drive its evolution. The conclusion relates each episode to the others, identifying more general patterns in the evolution of the Internet (Beinhocker, 2006; Hodgson and Knudson, 2010; Padgett and Powell, 2012).
26.3