ARTICLE IN PRESS

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/scaman

Scand. J. Mgmt. (2008) 24, 44–54

0956-5221/$ - see frdoi:10.1016/j.scama

�Corresponding au

E-mail address: e

Failed institution building: Understanding theinterplay between agency, social skill and context

Tim Edwardsa,�, Ossie Jonesb

aCardiff Business School, UKbManchester Metropolitan University, UK

KEYWORDSRelational approach;Agency;Failed institutionbuilding;Social skill;Champions;Regional Science Park

ont matter & 2007n.2007.12.001

thor.

dwardstj@cf.ac.u

SummaryThis article examines the idea of institution building in terms of the interplay betweenagentic orientation, social skill and context. It argues that a relational approach to agencyprovides a useful framework for understanding the limits of social skill in explaining suchprocesses. A detailed account, using the lens supplied by the idea of ‘agentic orientation’helps to elaborate the failed formation of NewBuC, a public–private partnership designedto give assistance to entrepreneurs keen to establish technology-based companies on a UKRegional Science Park. This approach is seen to provide a conception of agency that allowsfor critical reflection at the micro-level around the role of champions and social skill ininstitutional analysis.& 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Recent developments in institutional analysis have initiatedwidespread debate around the role of agency in institutionaltheory. This has led to the growth of a new sub-theme in theliterature based on the idea of institutional entrepreneur-ship. Although work in this area offers valuable insights intothe antecedents and the skilful manipulation of organisa-tional fields it has also had the unintended consequence oflimiting accounts of agency to examples of successfulinstitutional change. What has often been overlooked ininstitutional studies—ignoring Selznick’s (1949) originalcontribution—is to frame the ability of actors to respondto different institutional pressures and processes (see Oliver,1992). Micro-process accounts of failed institution building

Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

k (T. Edwards).

are especially rare. Recent interest in conceptualisinginstitutions as temporal-relational domains (Emirbayer,1997) is an indication of a shift towards an appreciation ofagency during the structuring of institutions (Delbridge &Edwards, 2007; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). It is thepropensity for actors to intervene in the structuring of sucharrangements and to reflect on them which requires furtherexplanation. Hence, in this case study, we adopt Emirbayerand Mische’s (1998) relational approach to frame social skills(Fligstein, 1997) and the role of champions (Tolbert &Zucker, 1996).

The empirical focus of this article is an abortive attemptto initiate a public–private partnership between an aca-demic institution and commercial interest groups with theaim of assisting entrepreneurs interested in starting-uptechnology-based firms. The proposal was based on aRegional Science Park (RSP) model; a semi-institutionalisedform that has often been used to structure local economicactivities around University campuses (Massey, Quintas, &

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Failed institution building: Understanding the interplay 45

Wield, 1992). Institutional arrangements such as theseprovide social prescriptions specifying the boundaries ofthe organisational field, its rules of membership, and therole identities and appropriate organisational forms of itsconstituent communities (Friedland & Alford, 1991). Theprime concern of this article is to theorise the local encodingof these social prescriptions by champions of the public–

private partnership idea. The term ‘champion’ derives fromthe organisational change literature and refers to thoseactors that have a vested interest or material stake in thepromotion of such prescriptions (see Tolbert & Zucker,1996). Ours is a micro-process study of ‘the knowledgeable,creative and practical work of individual and collectiveactors’ involved in the adoption of institutions (Lawrence &Suddaby, 2006, p. 219). The analytical lens focuses on thenature of agency to examine a failed attempt at institutionbuilding.

Although this is not a study about institutional entrepre-neurship we begin with a brief assessment of this theme toillustrate how the notion of agency has been understood inthe institutional literature. We then go onto discussprocesses of institutionalisation to help frame the role ofchampions in diffusing institutional arrangements (Tolbert &Zucker, 1996). Using Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) accountof agency to theorise the links between agency and contextwe assess how champions skilfully engage in adoptinginstitutions (Fligstein, 1997). We argue that orthodoxstructural contingency approaches fail to adequately framethe ongoing relationship between agency and institutions.Instead, we propose a temporal-relational approach toprovide a more fine-grained view that helps to elaboratehow strategic action is revealed in the ways agents connectto their structural context (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). Thislink is rarely if ever stable: ‘under particular circumstances,the structured choices that agents make can have a more orless transformative impact on the nature of structuresthemselves’ (Hays, 1994, p. 65). It is because the RSP modelof industry–university collaboration is only relatively in-stitutionalised (Tolbert & Zucker, 1996) that our under-standing of the active involvement of champions must assessthe connections between agency, social skill and context.A relational view is found to be useful in showing howchampions emerge but also why they sometimes fail toencourage the wider adoption of existing institutions. Toconclude, we assess the usefulness of such an approach forinstitutional analysis.

Agency and institutional analysis

Institutions are conceived as ‘multifaceted, durable socialstructures, made up of symbolic elements, social activitiesand material resources’ that frame human agency bycreating legal, moral and cultural boundaries (Scott, 2001,p. 49). Institutional studies infer that organisationalbehaviours become social givens because such social norms,rules and meanings are taken-for-granted. Mainstreaminstitutional literature excludes agency from such accountsbecause exchanges between organisational members areconceived as being routinised and therefore not requiringthe active involvement of actors (see Zucker, 1988). It isonly recently that criticisms have been aired about the

assumed stability and conformity of institutional forms(Dacin, Goodstein, & Scott, 2002). Subsequent interest ininstitutional change has led to a new sub-theme ininstitutional analysis that is based on the notion ofinstitutional entrepreneurship.

Maguire, Hardy, and Lawrence (2004, p. 657) defineinstitutional entrepreneurship as the ‘activities of actorswho have interest in particular institutional arrangementsand who leverage resources to create new institutions or totransform existing ones’. Institutional entrepreneurs areactors who create or change institutions by engaging in‘projective agency’ (Dorado, 2005); they focus on offeringfuture visions or remedies to resolve current organisationalor social problems. Recent efforts to overcome the tensionbetween institutional continuity and conformity and thosecreative processes which often lead to change has promotedresearch into how ‘embedded’ actors can both envision newpractices and encourage their adoption by others (Garud,Hardy, & Maguire, 2007). According to Garud and Karnoe(2001) one way of bridging such contradictions is to considerstructure as a platform for the ‘unfolding’ of entrepreneur-ial activity. Hence, ‘actors are knowledgeable agents with acapacity to reflect and act in ways other than thoseprescribed by taken-for-granted social rules and techno-logical artefacts’ (Garud, Hardy, & Maguire, 2007, p. 961). Inexplaining institutional change the challenge has been toaccount for agency while not loosing sight of the keycontribution of institutional theory which has been toemphasis the mediating role of institutional arrangements.This relates to the paradox of embedded agency: ‘How canactors change institutions if their actions, intentions, andrationality are all conditioned by the very institution theywish to change?’ (Holm, 1995, p. 398). Ideas used to addressthis question include: ‘loose coupling’ (Powell, 1991),‘incomplete institutionalization’ (DiMaggio, 1988), ‘nestedsystems’ (Holm, 1995), ‘mutability’ (Clemens & Cook, 1999)‘dialectics’ (Seo & Creed, 2002) and ‘the autonomousreflexive’ (Mutch, 2007). What each account effectivelydoes is to revise ‘the assumption that all means and endsavailable to agents are institutionally conditioned’ (Seo &Creed, 2002, p. 230). While this research reveals an activeengagement in theory development such debates remainrather narrow as their focus is around successful change butalso institutional entrepreneurship. Perhaps with the ex-ception of Seo and Creed (2002) and Mutch (2007) they alsotend to over-emphasise the ‘hero imagery’ of the individualentrepreneur while underplaying the ongoing interplaybetween agency and structure during such processes (Louns-bury & Crumley, 2007). Recent attempts to reframe theconceptual scaffolding of institutional analysis (followingthe work of Jepperson, 1991; Zucker, 1988) have recast thedebate in a different direction by incorporating agency intoaccounts of the ‘structuring’ of institutions (Delbridge &Edwards, 2007; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). The challengehas been to develop an open-ended approach that recog-nises the potential of actors to reflect on existing institu-tional arrangements without reverting to rational actormodels of agency.

Interest around the idea of ‘institutional work’ provides aprime example of how scholars have recently considered thesignificance of agency in maintaining institutional conditions(Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006) The key issue is in finding

ARTICLE IN PRESS

T. Edwards, O. Jones46

adequate ways to theorise and incorporate an understandingof action and its complex inter-relationship with specificinstitutions and wider social structures (Delbridge &Edwards, 2007). In their discussion of institutional work,Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) refer to Jepperson (1991) toframe a ‘practice’ orientated approach to institutions. Inboth pieces of work, the point of departure from orthodoxinstitutional thinking is the idea that ‘institutions are theproduct (intentional or otherwise) of purposive action’. Thisline of argument links to Zucker’s (1988) contention thatinstitutions tend towards social entropy and, as a result,require the active engagement of actors to maintain thosearrangements (Lawrence, Winn, & Jennings, 2001). Thisview of institutionalisation informs our assessment ofinstitution building. Although institutions may representrelatively resilient social prescriptions there remains arelational and therefore variable link between agency andstructure. What is important to recognise is that thisconnectivity is rarely stable or predictable (Hays, 1994).Field structures are multi-dimensional; how agents connectwith their environment is informed by the way they conceiveof the local and historical realities at any given moment interms of the embeddedness of social structures (Delbridge &Edwards, 2007). Offering an appreciation of potentiallydifferent types of connectivity is important not only inexplaining institutional change but also in better appreciat-ing the nature of ongoing institution building.

Champions, social skill and institutional analysis

Orthodox institutional thought has generally assumed thatagency is modulated or determined by the organisationalcontext ‘with the scope for social praxis contingent on theextent to which meaning was embedded’ (Delbridge &Edwards, 2007, p. 196). This can be usefully demonstratedwith reference to Tolbert and Zucker’s (1996, p. 180) modelof institutionalisation that involves three sequential pro-cesses in the forming and spread of institutional structures:habitualisation, objectification and sedimentation. Habi-tualisation involves ‘the development of patterned problem-solving behaviours and the association of such behaviourswith particular stimuli’ while objectification is ‘the devel-opment of general shared social meanings attached to thesebehaviours’ (p. 181). Sedimentation refers to the processesby which these shared social meanings become taken-for-granted and are treated as ‘social givens’ (Berger &Luckmann, 1967). The prime insights emerging from thiswork are twofold: first, the objectification and diffusion ofinstitutional arrangements rely on the efforts of championsto ‘market’ the ideas, while, second, not all patterns ofsocial behaviour are institutionalised to the same degree.The relationship between the actions of champions androutinisation are relatively rigid. When patterns of socialbehaviour reach a level of semi-institutionalisation thechampions of the ideas are required to actively justify andpersuade others to adopt them. In turn, the need for activeagency reduces when the meanings attributed to institu-tional arrangements become taken-for-granted or sedimen-ted (Tolbert & Zucker, 1996). In this respect, championsare those actors involved in sharing and disseminatingexisting institutional ideas or models they are not the

institutional entrepreneurs who are conceived of creatingnew arrangements.

We see this ‘‘rigidity’’ in Fligstein’s (1997) incorporationof agency and social skills into assessments of institutionalchange. Fligstein’s view of social skills infers an ‘ability tomotivate other actors by providing those actors withcommon meaning and identities in which action can beundertaken and justified’ (Fligstein, 1997, p. 397). This ismuch like Strang and Meyer’s (1993) conceptualisation of‘theorization’ which indicates that the championing of ideasdepends on the ability of actors to conceive of anorganisational problem and justify a legitimate solution orresponse (Tolbert & Zucker, 1996). Fligstein (1997) argues,that to utilise social skills actors should also be aware of therole of groups within an organisation and the type of‘strategic action’ likely to ‘make sense’ given the prevailingconditions. Accommodating the interests of these ‘‘others’’is dependent on whether the existing institutional arrange-ments are either forming (Hardy, 1994), stable, or in crisis(Oliver, 1992; Tolbert & Zucker, 1996). The ability of agentsto offer alternative meanings and understandings dependson the overall stability of those existing patterns of socialbehaviour.

It may be reasonable to argue that sedimented institu-tions offer rationalised beliefs and practices that rendersuch arrangements relatively communicable and stable.However, the reliance on such notions closes down thepossibility for a more open-ended and dynamic connectionbetween agency and structure. Our assessment of agency isrestricted to moments of change or crisis when thestructural context allows alternative voices to be heard.Yet, what such an approach fails to adequately consider isthe potential for divergent meaning between actors in thesame context (Zilber, 2002). If we concur with Zucker’s(1988) contention that ‘social givens’ tend to dissipateunless they are actively reproduced then we need to breakwith orthodox structural contingency arguments and buildframeworks that incorporate the potential for more nego-tiated orders (Delbridge & Edwards, 2007). Structuralcontingency arguments also fail to explain why championsfind themselves in an influential position to introduce newarrangements or how this position informs their ability topersuade others (Mutch, 2007). An approach which begins toaddress such questions can be found in recent work thatconsiders how field-level ‘contradictions’ present actorswith the space to free themselves from existing institutionalarrangements (Seo & Creed, 2002). These contradictionsallow alternative social norms to emerge and becomediscursive resources that can be utilised by motivated actors(Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006). Our argument is similarlyframed: while agency and structure are often closely alignedwhere institutional arrangements are stable (followingconventional institutional thinking) such connections canalso be transformed as actors engage in social conversationsand relations (Battilana, 2006; Hays, 1994). Althoughinstitutions might reveal highly rationalised sets of practicesand belief systems their existence ultimately relies on theengagement of actors who are integral to their reproduction(Emirbayer, 1997). How actors connect with such contexts isnot rigid or predictable and it is developing an appreciationof this variability (at a micro-level) that we propose arelational approach.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Failed institution building: Understanding the interplay 47

A relational approach to agency

In developing our understanding of institution building, weagree with Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) influential viewthat it is crucial to differentiate the various elements ofhuman agency. Agency is not simply defined in terms ofhabitual practice but constitutes past, present and futureorientations that reveal a more complex link between actionand structure. Put another way, ‘as actors move within andamongy different unfolding contexts, they switch between(or ‘recompose’) their temporal orientations—as con-structed within and by means of those contexts—and thusare capable of changing their relationship to structure’(Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 964). Actors will internalisemeaning against a backdrop that reveals the significanceof multiple agentic orientations or shifting connectionsbetween them and their context.

Emirbayer and Mische (1998, p. 970) identify a ‘chordaltriad of agency’ in which there is interplay between habit,imagination and judgement that ‘reproduces and transformsthose structures in interactive response to the problemsposed by changing historical situations’. In referring to habitthey allude to the iterational element of agency, which isaligned to Bourdieu and Giddens’s theories of practice. Thefocus is on past patterns of thought and action, the type oforientation built upon dispositions, experiences and socialschema that help to sustain identities, interactions andinstitutions over time. In turn, they propose a projectiveelement of agency which refers to the potential for thecreation of ‘possible future trajectories of action, in whichreceived structures of thought and action may be creativelyreconfigured in relation to actors’ hopes, fears, and desiresfor the future’ (p. 972). Lastly, they describe a practical-evaluative form of agency, which relates to those ‘practicaland normative judgements’ of real-time events when actorsrespond to ‘presently evolving situations’. This ability toreflect on current situations corresponds with Emirbayer andMische’s contention that agency consists not simply ofhabitual practices but includes the ability to look ahead andto make practical judgements. This ability is similarlyinformed by the structural context which is one at thesame time the condition and subject of agency. In theirdiscussion, such orientations reflect a mix of agentic ‘sub-tones’ (past, present and future) where specific orientationstend to dominate in certain situations. For example, wherethe structural context remains largely taken-for-grantedthen iterational orientations tend to dominate. Yet, it isduring situations that are uncertain when actors will makepractical-evaluative judgements about the best course ofaction; it is on such occasions that agency is recomposedagainst the unfolding context but within the frame ofexisting meaning and dispositions.

This perspective releases action from being the pursuit ofpre-established ends. Rather, human action exists at thejunction of emerging events that requires actors tocontinually re-focus between the past and future. AsEmirbayer and Mische (1998, p. 967) argue: ‘ends andmeans develop coterminously within contexts that arethemselves ever changing and thus always subject to re-evaluation and reconstruction on the part of the reflectiveintelligence’. Making sense of emergent events is not avoluntary act but reveals an intersubjective process (Biggart

& Beamish, 2003). Although actions are always informed byhabits and pre-existing arrangements these features of thesocial world are consistently the subject of reflection. It isthis situatedness of actions that provides not simply thebasis for coalition building but also provides space forspeculation. In much of the literature, the focus oninstitution building has been to explore how actors persuadeothers to join change projects (see Fligstein, 1997).However, this work fails, at the micro-level, to connectemergent events with an assessment of strategic conduct.The introduction of institutions in new contexts cannot beexplained by the role of social skills alone. To avoid slippingback into simple means-ends assessments our understandingof the role of social skills must also include an appreciationof how, in the process of negotiating institutions, ends andmeans develop coterminously. What at one moment appearsto be a reasonable course of action may in the process ofcreating a ‘reflective intelligence’ lead to changes inperception and an assessment of what might be possible.On such occasions, institution building is no longer a simplequestion of persuasion and social skill rather it constitutes arelational (often unintended) connection between agency(of which social skill is an aspect) and the unfolding (oftenlocal) social context.

In this article, the public–private partnership infers a setof rationalised beliefs and practices related to localeconomic development around university campuses (Masseyet al., 1992). Here we contend that while the ‘socialprescriptions’ informing public–private partnerships appearto be relatively communicable and transparent the extent towhich such arrangements are objectified depends on theway the unfolding structural context mediates the actions ofthose actors involved in spreading the institution. Putanother way, our understanding of institution building mustinclude an explanation of how actors become involved insuch endeavours and how over time they connect with theunfolding social context. Our findings suggest that actors donot act according to a simple recipe (determined by anexisting model of a public–private partnership) rather, theyconstruct such models and, in doing so, re-align with theirsocial context. Here we conceptualise such processes interms of the changing links between human agency andsocial structure, which marks a departure from much of theexisting institutional literature that tends to attributeinstitutionalisation with either habitualisation or the lan-guage of projectivity (see DiMaggio, 1988; Dorado, 2005).

Research methods

The data for this paper are drawn from a longitudinal casestudy. The idea for NewBuC originated with an experiencedentrepreneur who wanted to help technology-based busi-nesses on a RSP. Three members of staff from the nearbyUniversity Business School became involved because this hadthe potential to offer support for students involved withundergraduate and postgraduate entrepreneurship courses.These three staff members were the business developmentmanager, an academic member of staff and a Ph.D. studentwith practical experience of business support. It was duringthe negotiations of NewBuC that the academic started toreflect on their personal experiences and saw this as an

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2 Key events in the development of NewBuC.

Time Event/activity

April 1999 Entrepreneur makespresentation to MBA class on hisexperience of starting andmanaging a high-tech firm

May 1999 Informal discussions between APand Business School staff aboutpossibility of establishing a‘joint-venture’

June 1999 Inaugural meeting ofNewBuC—invited members ofsmall business community (AP’sfriends, business contacts)

July 1999 ED, manager of local bankattends second meeting—inviteby GW

July–September 1999 Fortnightly meeting involvingparticipants from public andprivate sectors [held in BS]

July–September 1999 Meetings typified by disputeamong public–private actors

September 1999 ED and KG stop attending due toconflict related to ‘profit taking’

October 1999 Presentation by DiscTechnologies to representativesof NewBuC

October 1999 Setting-up of managementgroup designate

November 1999 Call for shareholders and formalincorporation of NewBuC

T. Edwards, O. Jones48

opportunity to critically evaluate what had happened. Withthis in mind, the academic developed a case history drawingon three key sources: first, the academic kept record of 202-hour meetings they attended over a 12-month period.Second, minutes of meetings from November 1999 (whenminute-taking began) to December 2000. Third, in July 2000a researcher was employed to interview all those who wereinvolved in NewBuC. Eleven taped interviews were carriedout during July and August and respondents were askedabout their role and involvement. Table 1 details the 11actors who took an active role in either setting up NewBuCor joined in the early stages (Table 2). For the purpose ofconfidentiality, the names of all respondents have beenanonymised.

In stating the advantages of case research Yin (1994)notes how observing chronological sequences permitsinvestigators to ‘determine causal events over time’. Ourview is that establishing causality in complex socialorganisations is extremely difficult whatever methodologyis adopted. We concur with Barley (1986, p. 81) who arguesthat the mapping of ‘emergent patterns of action’ demandsa detailed qualitative method—‘retrospective accounts andarchival data are insufficient for these purposes sinceindividuals rarely remember, and organisations rarelyrecord, how behaviours and interpretations stabilise overthe course of the structuring process’. Here the caseanalysis includes data obtained through participant observa-tion as the academic involved in the start-up is a co-authorof this paper.

The use of participant observation presents its ownchallenges as it offers an opportunity to gain a uniqueinsight into the negotiation process while at the same time itmight been seen as leading to some form of bias (Yin, 1994).

Table 1 Main actors and their roles.

Actor Employment Role inNewBuC

Alan Pearce (AP) Entrepreneur Initiator/mgtgroup (MD)

Brian Johnson (BJ) Accountant Mgt groupGraham Frazier (GF) MD of small

firmMgt group

Harry Thompson (HT) Universitybusinessdevelopment

Steering group

Gareth William (GW) Academic Steering groupFred Howard (FH) Self-employed

inventorSteering group

Ruth Wilson (RW) PA to FredHoward

Steering group

Eddie Lawton (EL) Owner-manager

Steering group

Colin Ainsworth (CA) Managementconsultant

Steering group

Katy Grant (KG) Ph.D.Researcher

Left after 4months

Edwards Davis (ED) Bank manager Left after 4months

December 1999 Role of Business School (BS)marginalised because HTexcluded from the managementgroup

January–June 2000 Fortnightly meetings continuebut increasingly dominated bydiscussion of AP’s own ideas

June 2000 Interviews carried out with allthe main participants (includingthose who left in early stages)

September 2000 Analysis of interviews presentedto the board and steering group

October 2000 Academic stops attendingmeetings

October2000–February 2001

NewBuC continues with verysmall group (AP’s friends)+HT

February 2001 HT changes job and informs APthat BS cannot support NewBuC

Although we acknowledge the potential for bias we counterthis by arguing that although the academic was directlyinvolved in the process this has only added to the accountby, for example, offering deeper insights into the roles ofparticipants and the contentions arising. In turn, although itmight be claimed that such an involvement may undermineour interpretation of the academic’s role we are confidentthat a balanced interpretation has been possible given the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Failed institution building: Understanding the interplay 49

access to a range of data sources that include interviewswith multiple participants and minutes of meetings.

In the remaining sections we consider the idea ofinstitution building by assessing the interplay betweenagentic orientation, social skill and context. We adopt arelational approach to agency to help explain the limits ofsocial skills in explaining such processes. To begin, we brieflyconsider the idea of science parks by way of introduction tothe case study and of locating this micro-process analysiswithin a broader historical frame.

Institution building and UK science parks

The first UK science parks were established in Cambridgeand Heriott-Watt Universities in 1972. By the late 1990s, asother universities attempted to replicate the success ofCambridge in particular, there were 46 science parksoperating in the UK (Siegel, Westhead, & Wright, 2003,p. 1359). The United Kingdom Science Park Association(UKSPA, 1996) suggest that science parks have threefeatures: they are designed to foster the creation andgrowth of R&D intensive firms, offer an environment thatenables large companies to develop links with small high-tech firms and promote formal and operational linksbetween firms, universities and other research institutions.In the light of these intentions it is interesting to note thatof the UK science parks recently surveyed by UKSPA, only50% were engaged in R&D and new product development(Angle Technology Limited, 2003). Such findings confirmearlier observations about the ‘false reality’ of scienceparks (Massey, Quintas & Wield, 1992). While the idea ofscience parks has been well articulated it remains unclear(at least in the UK context), whether such arrangementspromote the formation of new firms, facilitate linksbetween the host academic institutions and park firms forimproving the take-up of ideas for new products andprocesses, or are leading edge.

The institutionalisation of this arrangement—the estab-lishment of a shared system of meaning and taken-for-granted social behaviour attributed to an assumed set ofideals—remains contentious. In such a context the need tofind a stable set of agreements means that strategic actorsmust find ways to connect constituents to a collectiveidentity. How this is achieved relates, in part, to the relativepositions of actors in organisational fields and the level oforganisation of those fields (Fligstein, 1997). What remainsfar less clear is how these features interact during micro-processes of negotiation. How in the constitution of meaningdo the emergent features of this process mediate the tacticsof strategic actors as they engage and reflect upon theseprocesses?

The setting: localised institution building

The constitution of science parks seemingly represents aloosely constituted set of ideas based around earliertemplates for achieving economic prosperity and collabora-tion. While these early examples (Cambridge) were seen toreadily encompass clear patterns of behaviour their sub-sequent diffusion within the UK failed to lead to theobjectification and sedimentation usually associated with

successful institutionalisation (see Tolbert & Zucker, 1996).This is apparent when assessing RSP which is the venue forour case study. RSP was established in 1983 and within 10years had 80 companies on site. In 1996, RSP became alimited company and gained independence from localauthority control. There were further extensions of thepark in 1997 and 1998 which meant at the time the researchwas carried out there were 110 companies on-site with 1400employees. Not only was RSP independent of the localauthority (representing a major UK city) there were noformal links with the University despite co-location on thesame site.

The intended formation of NewBuC was presented as asolution to the perceived failures of these pre-existingarrangements. This required the active participation of thechampions of the idea not simply to sell the notion amonglike-minded actors but also to create a common meaningsystem and structure that could be used to persuade existingincumbents of the idea’s value. This was thought necessarybecause the management of the science park was seeminglymore concerned with maximising rental income thandeveloping a high-technology ‘cluster’ such as those foundin Oxford and Cambridge.

Forming ideas: finding a common understanding

Institution building in this instance represented an attemptto realise the ideas that were attributed to the earlymovement supporting the creation of science parks (Masseyet al., 1992). As it was, the mechanisms for this were notreadily in place; there was no clear relationship betweensenior University staff or the management team at RSP.What was in place included knowledgeable individualsaware of the potential benefits of such an arrangement.This seems to represent a situation where the structure wasrelatively settled and where, according to Fligstein (1997,p. 402), strategic action demands that actors not only keeptheir own members motivated but where they have to dealwith their more powerful neighbours.

The possibility of NewBuC emerged as an idea after alecture given by a guest speaker—Alan Pearce—who hadbeen invited to talk to a class of MBA students abouthis experiences as a ‘high-technology’ entrepreneur. Thelecture was one of a series that were organised to encourageoutside speakers to engage with students and to developcloser links with academics. Such links provided opportu-nities for dialogue and the sharing of opinions around issuesaffecting the local business and academic community.Having being invited by Harry Thompson (University businessdevelopment manager), Pearce engaged Thompson inconversation about RSP which he thought had consistentlyfailed to attract new technology-based firms. The lecturegenerated a platform to think further and imaginatively ofalternative arrangements. Both had a vested interest indeveloping an understanding; Pearce seemed to be identify-ing a potential point of contact where he could contribute tothe local business community, which also gave Thompson apoint of departure for the University to help define thoserelations. These discussions led to an informal agreementto continue with the dialogue and to float ideas onthe possibility of establishing a public–private partnership.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

T. Edwards, O. Jones50

With the support of the University and other like-mindedentrepreneurs the basic idea was to encourage the start-upof new technology-based firms providing advice and ex-pertise on their business models and product/servicedevelopment.

At this time, Thompson approached a Universitylecturer—Gareth Williams—with whom he had worked withon several projects through the UK government’s TeachingCompany Scheme. The two agreed to pursue the idea withWilliams making overtures to senior managers to seek formalsupport from the University. Williams had seen the benefitsof such linkages through the Teaching Company Scheme andfelt that a public–private partnership had the potential toformalise collaboration around a philanthropic set ofprinciples. At this early stage, the discussions focused onthe ethos of the proposed project and seem to reflect whatFligstein (1997, p. 399, italics in original) refers to as thetactic of ‘Taking what the system gives’: Williams began toscope-out what might or might not be possible. As Fligsteinargues: ‘Strategic actors understand the ambiguities anduncertainties of the organizational field and work off them’.It soon became apparent, however, that scope for actionmight be relatively narrow in so far as senior managementstopped short of either offering resources or a public displayof support. The project was thought to be too vague whileconcerns were aired as to how the new arrangement wouldbe managed. There was also scepticism about how sucharrangements would play-out given the lack of interestshown by the existing park management for supporting links.Instead, while tacit acknowledgement of the project wasgiven it was also agreed that any academic involvementwould constitute an informal arrangement which was notformally sanctioned by the University. The attempt to frameaction: ‘to convince others who do not necessarily shareinterests that what will occur is in their interests’ (Fligstein,1997, p. 399, italics in original) was, at this initial moment,of limited success. While Thompson and Williams feltstrongly about helping technology-based start-up firms theidea still lacked credibility. The only resources that weremade available were based on goodwill; Thompson provideda meeting room while Williams gave his time to encouragethe dialogue.

Prior to discussions around the detail of the project it isapparent that the structural context presented opportu-nities and limitations (the period between April–May 1999).The opportunities represented the articulation of ideals; bythe very fact that there was consensus around the failings ofthe RSP, Pearce, Thompson and Williams occupied a mutualspace that enabled them to assess ‘possible future trajec-tories of action’ (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 972). Suchdialogue did not require much in the way of strategic actionbetween them—there was a common perception and apossible solution waiting to be adequately articulated.Social skill was needed in establishing a common vision inthe context of the structural constraints and resourcelimitations. In effect, these actors were working fromoutside the established structural context—success reliedon their attempts to lever influence over the incumbents(senior management at both the University and RSP) toestablish working relations. For Thompson and Williamstheir involvement was directed towards persuading seniormanagement of the relevance and future role of the

partnership. However, it was difficult to escape the legacyof RSP, which in the recent past had shown a lack of synergybetween the institution and park management. What wasneeded was an arrangement that would help persuadesenior managers of the role of the project. The attempted‘brokering’ of the arrangement would need further ground-work. This included the champions of the partnershiplooking to their immediate social networks to identify whatFligstein (1997, p. 401) refers to as ‘outliers’ or what weterm, likeminded supporters and sponsors.

Establishing a dominant approach

Those introduced to the idea of NewBuC included two closebusiness friends of Pearce, Graham Frazier and BrianJohnson. Two further parties were invited by Williamsincluding Edward Davis the manager of a local bank andKaty Grant a Ph.D. student. These early meetings continuedto open-up space for creative thinking and were led byPearce, as the self-styled initiator of NewBuC, supported byThompson who ‘bootlegged’ University resources (room,coffee and sandwiches). Pearce took great pains to confirmhis expertise as a successful entrepreneur: ‘I’d created asmall business, run it for ten years, grown it for ten yearsand I’ve tripped over every pothole and lump in the road’.As actors interpret their external world through the frameof past experiences they invoke specific models of howthings are, which they then generally act upon. Pearceembarked on a process to actively convince the othersthat his perceptions were crucial and that the ‘‘outliers’’needed to appreciate this ‘‘fact’’ (Fligstein, 1997). This‘‘worldview’’ set the tone for future meetings when ideaswere translated into written agreements.

Pearce took every opportunity to define what mattered inthe proposed project, which often contrasted with the viewtaken by Williams and Thompson. While Thompson agreedwith Pearce’s basic sentiment about the need for thepartnership to demonstrate good business sense when givingadvice he also saw NewBuC ‘as an excellent example ofaltruism in that successful people y were happy to givetheir time to help others achieve some sort of success’. Thiswas the type of philanthropic activity that he wanted toencourage with the assistance of like-minded experts at theUniversity. What was needed was a workable solution whichwould satisfy sceptics in the University and prove inviting tothe park management team. These initial meetings were anattempt to ‘aggregate interests’. As Fligstein (1997, p. 400)argues: strategic actors ‘must find a way in which to joinactors or groups with widely different preferences and helpreorder those preferences’. This, for Fligstein, is the mostimportant act if strategic actors are to gain consensusaround a particular activity. It remained unclear whetherPearce’s fixation on a business ethic could be woven into amore service-based interpretation. As it was, there wasenough ‘‘common ground’’ to consider a more formalarrangement.

It was in the attempt to achieve consensus that the finermeaning of the venture began to be set-out (July–Septem-ber 1999). For Katy Grant, a mature Ph.D. student who hadpractical experience with the entrepreneurship communityhaving worked in small firm policy-making for the Greater

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Failed institution building: Understanding the interplay 51

London Council and the small firm unit at London BusinessSchool, the key issue was to develop a support-based logic.For her, consensus would be founded on the view thatNewBuC should have charitable status or at least have a fundindependent of distributed profits to shareholders. This viewstressed the need to establish the extent of an individual’sshareholding thereby limiting profit-taking. Other propo-nents of this view included Williams, Thompson and Daviswho also felt that the partnership should combine a supportlogic underpinned by good business sense with a not-for-profit principle. In contrast, Pearce, Johnson and Frazier,who represented the management team designate, took thelead in questioning these ideas. For example, the movetowards charitable status was seen to create an unnecessarybureaucratic burden because it could be a distraction fromthe main aims of the partnership. An independent fundwould also create incompatibility between NewBuC and thefirms it created; the opportunity to take a shareholdingwould be undermined.

What this represented was not consensus building but theentrenchment of divergent interests such that these discus-sions reinforced crucial differences, which in turn helped toshape how these actors connected with their context. Severalfeatures deserve mention: the impasse between thoseconcerned with developing a service-based logic and thosewho wanted a chance to profit from the arrangement played-out in favour of the ‘‘for profit’’ group because the ongoingimpasse made it less likely for support to come from theUniversity. Support might have been available if this had beenresolved but Pearce and his cohort did not retreat from theirdemands. Without this support, any resolution would have tobe driven internally, which given the unfolding situationtended to favour the ‘‘for-profit’’ lobby. In turn, the strategicconduct of actors shifted from consensus building to politicalconflict. No longer were participants conveying an idea forthe future rather they were making practical judgementsabout the present that revealed the shaping effect of theexisting social relations between actors.

The preference for establishing a public–private partner-ship might have started life as a clear ‘end’ but the processof negotiating this arrangement reveals a much more fluidrelationship between ‘means’ and ‘ends’. What followedwas a more confrontational set of relations; the applicationof social skill shifted from developing mutual understandingwhere the intention was to begin to build connectivity basedon ‘‘give-and-take’’ to a set of exchanges that reflected anattempt to move towards direct action. As Davis recounted:‘there’s nothing wrong in wanting or expecting to take ashareholding in a new company. But, I think personalagendas were beginning to surface. NewBuC was being seenas a business in itselfy and the raison d’etre moved quicklyfrom a support organization to one that was trying todevelop a lot of the ideas for itself’ (our emphasis). WhilePearce and his cohort may have felt confident in theirinterpretation of the role of NewBuC they still had to maketheir arrangement work. Exercising ‘direct authority’(Fligstein, 1997), by running rough-shod over the otherparticipants, may have closed-down opposition but itremained to be seen whether the approach would result innew business start-ups.

Success in developing and supporting ideas would be ameasure in confirming the preferred logic adopted by Pearce

and his close allies. In this instance, Pearce invited abusiness acquaintance to present his own business idea tohelp generate appropriate protocols and rules. This was alsoto be the first test run for the public–private partnership;the entrepreneur (Fred Howard) wanted to use the event toobtain support for his patent to reduce the cost ofmanufacturing constant velocity joints used for transmittingpower to front-wheel drive cars (October 1999). From theoutset, all the parties agreed that the idea had real businesspotential but there was disagreement about how toproceed. Broadly, the ‘public sector’ participants wantedNewBuC to support the business proposition and provide asmuch advice as possible. There was no conflict of interest asthe proposal presented an opportunity to encourage thetype of business that had previously been absent from theRSP. In contrast, Pearce and his close cohort were unwillingto commit resources to support this particular project. AsHoward reflected: ‘It started off as a group with everyoneputting in their knowledge but ended with a few trying tosnaffle the one good idea which they’d looked at. Pearce,Johnson and Ainsworth y if I were to speak darkly, thosethree were trying to grab my idea for themselves’. As‘means’ and ‘ends’ co-evolve actors reflect upon thelinkages between their involvement and those benefits thatmight emerge from such activities. It is not unsurprising thatthe transition from idea to practice proved messy in thisrespect. By promising a relationship based on a support logicbut then linking that support with profit-taking criteriaPearce and his group had failed to clarify the relationshipbetween support and profit; conflating the two was a keyconcern of Grant and proved unacceptable for Howard.

With the availability of advice directly linked to profit-taking, the relationship between NewBuC and potentialclient became ‘‘loaded’’. This had two effects: First, Grantand Davis stopped attending meetings once they saw thattheir contributions were no longer effective in promoting aservice-based logic. As Grant stated: ‘I had no confidence inthe management group being able to pull things together.The more I heard them the more I thought ‘‘you are notgoing to get this thing going’’ and I was not going to wastevaluable time trying to change something I couldn’tchange’. Second, the pilot also failed to deliver a successfulresult with regards to agreed protocols and criteria thatcould be used in any future discussions to integrate NewBuCwith either the RSP management team or the University. Asit was, by October 2000 Williams had followed Grant andDavis and withdrew his support and by February 2001 allUniversity contact had ceased with Thompson’s appoint-ment to a new post. NewBuC continued to operate inisolation and focused on supporting the ideas of Pearce’snetwork of business contacts which included ideas formagnetic wallpaper and fitted garages. Although Pearcehad succeeded in taking control of the project he had alsostifled the venture as the remaining actors were close allieswith similar perspectives and experiences.

The status of NewBuC and the failed partnership offers anindication of the limits of social skill in so far as the shiftfrom developing a common ground to the setting of normsand values reveals a marked recomposition in the way actorsconnected with their social context and framed theirtactics. In this case, the nature of strategic action and skillwas shaped by those emergent events, which were in part an

ARTICLE IN PRESS

T. Edwards, O. Jones52

outcome of their actions but also the prior actions of thoseactors who had established and maintained RSP. It is at thejuncture of past events and local negotiations that suchprojects emerge and where the limits of the knowledge-ability and strategic intent of actors often become apparent(see Delbridge & Edwards, 2007).

Discussion and conclusions

We contend that Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) theorisationof agency offers a useful way to frame the role of championsand social skill during the emergent events just outlined.The point of departure was common interest around linkingUniversities and new technology business start-ups. Pearceand Thompson came together because they represented thenecessary constituents of such an arrangement; they alsohad a common interest in the role of RSP. This provided aframework to consider options while it also set the contextfor the negotiations around NewBuC. In the period whenideas were first being formed we see the interested partiesdiscussing the status quo, recognising the shortcomings inthe way the RSP was organised, assessing the support thatmight be available from the University and preferencesaround the new arrangement. This idea provided a call toaction based on, as yet, a relatively ill-defined project but asingle purpose. These were ‘‘narrative constructions’’ whenbasic ideas are ‘closely tied to the construction of narrativesthat locate future possibilities in relation to more or lesscoherent and temporal sequences’ (Emirbayer & Mische,1998, p. 989). At this point, the preferences of the interestparties existed alongside each other; Pearce, Thompson andWilliams adopted quite different institutional referents(Dorado, 2005) to help them meaningfully engage in thediscussion of a public–private partnership (Table 3).

The strategic tactics or social skills used at this pointreveal an attempt to take stock of the current structuralcontext (interest of University and RSP management team).It also illustrates the moves made by the different parties toengage in defining issues and gaining support for the generalidea of NewBuC. The implication of these discussions andactivities were not, however, immediately obvious. But, indeveloping the finer detail of the new venture the partiesdid begin to discover that there was more that separatedthem than brought them together. This revealed a shift inthe way actors connected with their social context when‘presently evolving situations’ required the actors to make‘practical and normative judgements’ about emergentevents (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 972). We suggest that

Table 3 Public–private referents.

Sector Public sector Private sector

Orientation Philanthropic Profit-drivenTime Freely given Charged at commercial

rateEthos Public good Private gainOutcomes Creation of

new firmsCreation of new firms as acommercial opportunity

Structure Democracy Top-down management

this shift (projective to practical-evaluative) is alsoreflected in the skills that were adopted and the purposeof negotiations that reveal a significant upheaval in powerrelations related to the internal constitution of NewBuC.

The attempt to ‘‘construct’’ a set of arrangements tosupport new business start-ups was not based on a pre-defined set of processes. Rather, the local negotiationscreated its own narrow path dependency as it becameincreasingly apparent that these negotiations would remainan internal affair (there was little chance of Williams orThompson being able to lever support when there remainedlittle agreement over the nature of NewBuC). In thiscontext, Pearce and his cohort were emboldened to takemore direct authority—blocking decisions and holdingfirm on a profit-maximising approach. This tactic was‘‘rewarded’’ with the gradual withdrawal of those vocaland dissenting voices. Taking what the system might giveremained an integral feature of the process; not only did itinclude assessing the potential role of the University it alsoincluded an assessment of the constitution of the proposedarrangement and the role of Thompson and his allies.

The key insights are to be found in identifying therelational link between the inclusion (and eventual exclu-sion) of the various actors or ‘outliers’ and the adoption ofreferents that helped frame the power play among theseactors. In the first instance, the adoption of a projectiveorientation revealed an attempt to scope-out interest andfind a common set of understanding among a wider set ofactors. This changed because this process precipitated aschism between interest groups which triggered a shift inthe relational features of the process. What followed wasthe playing-out of competing meanings. The inclusion of abroader group of supporters did not lead to a commonposition (as might be expected) rather it had the effect ofentrenching the two camps. With an unchanged localcontext (revealing a historical legacy), where the Universityand RSP management team were outside the negotiations,Pearce and his cohort were able to insist on their preferredunderstanding of the public–private partnership. This meantthat scope for agency remained narrowly defined. How thiswas resolved reveals how Pearce and his cohort capitalisedon the lack of direct authority exercised by Thompson andhis allies. It was Pearce and his cohort who manipulatedwhat the system would give them. Social skills were nowused to confirm difference rather than a common interest.As the power plays between incumbents worked through inthis emerging context (albeit quite rigid in terms of theseparation of the University and RSP) there was anopportunity to capitalise on the rigidities of the existingcontext. The attempt to find commonality was overtaken bythe desire to entrench specific views using a more direct andauthoritative approach. The practical-evaluation of thesecircumstances revealed both the limits for agency shown inthe response of Thompson and his allies and the potentialopportunities which were manifest in the tactics adopted byPearce and his cohort (Table 4).

We contend that this representation offers an initial stepin framing the integration of processes of agency, social skilland context during institution building (Table 4). In assessingthe combination of features it is possible to frameinstitution building by assessing the relational nature ofaction types, skill (and purpose) and structural context.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4 Failed institution building at NewBuC—a relational approach.

Agenticorientation

Purpose Social skills Context

Ideaformation

Projective Findingcommonality

� Taking what the system gives� Framing action (around preferences)� Aggregate interests (partial)� Brokering (partial)

� Settled structural context(RSP and University)� Forming around preferences

for a public–privatepartnership

Establishinga dominantapproach

Practical-evaluative

Emphasisingdifference

� Taking what the system gives(emergent events)� Networking to outliers (building

alliances and marginalising others)� Convince people one holds more

cards� Direct authority

� Emergent events withinNewBuC� Wider structural context

remains settled

Failed institution building: Understanding the interplay 53

Projectivity reveals space for both dialogue and positioningaround different institutional referents. Then, as thesenegotiations evolved the tactics adopted indicate differentrelational features as the emerging context presents limits,checks and opportunities around the interplay between theavailable institutional referents and the tactics adopted byactors. The nature and purpose of social skills adopted shiftin relation to the unfolding social context. As means andends develop coterminously we see a subtle shift in howactors connect with the environment. The significance ofsocial skill is found in the way such tactics are shaped aroundemergent events. Skills are not pre-chosen but illustrate theoften messy and chronic process of reflection which takesplace against the unfolding context but within the frame ofexisting and evolving understanding.

Here we suggest that such a relational approach has thepotential to contribute to a better understanding of thestructuring of institutions and the link between the micro-and macro-order (Delbridge & Edwards, 2007). Specifically,we see how contest at the micro-level failed to changeinstitutional arrangements. While we are able to observeconflict at the micro-order around potentially new institu-tional regimes (in this case the public–private partnership)we also see how pre-existing arrangements persisted. Theexercise of social skills was shaped by those emergentevents that opened-up the possibility for creativity andstrategic action but which simultaneously short-circuitedthe opportunity for change. As it turned out, the negotiatedoutcomes had little impact on the stability of RSP or the roleof the University as those that had embarked upon theproject (Pearce and his cohort) were unable to translatetheir intentions into arrangements that challenged thestatus quo. While the development of the means-endsrelationship offered an opportunity to exercise control suchskilful manipulation had a limited influence. Pearce and hiscohort could not transcend the existing institutionalcontext. Hence, while social skills are important they shouldbe understood relationally; in respect of the historicity ofsuch events that frames the interplay between actorsparticipating in institution building, the meanings that such

actors bring to the process and the emergent outcomes ofsuch events.

References

Angle Technology Limited. (2003). Evaluation of the past & futureeconomic contribution of the UK Science Park Movement.Cambridge: UKSPA.

Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring:Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social orderof radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32,78–108.

Battilana, J. (2006). Agency and institutions: The enabling role ofindividuals’ social position. Organization, 13(5), 653–676.

Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). Social construction of reality.New York: Archer Books.

Biggart, N., & Beamish, T. (2003). The economic sociology ofconventions: Habit custom, practice and routine in market orderworking paper.

Clemens, E. S., & Cook, J. M. (1999). Politics and institutionalism:Explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology,25, 441–466.

Dacin, T. M., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutionaltheory and institutional change: Introduction to the specialresearch forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 45–57.

Delbridge, R., & Edwards, T. (2007). Reflections on developments ininstitutional theory: Toward a relational approach. ScandinavianJournal of Management, 23(2), 191–205.

DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. InL. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations:Culture and environment (pp. 3–21). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Dorado, S. (2005). Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, andconvening. Organization Studies, 26(3), 385–414.

Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.

Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? AmericanJournal of Sociology, 4, 962–1023.

Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. AmericanBehavioural Scientist, 40(4), 397–405.

Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in:Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W.Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in

ARTICLE IN PRESS

T. Edwards, O. Jones54

organizational analysis (pp. 311–336). Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.

Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepre-neurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the specialissue. Organization Studies, 28(7), 957–970.

Garud, R., & Karnoe, P. (2001). Path creation as a process of mindfuldeviation. In R. Garud, & P. Karnoe (Eds.), Path dependence andcreation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneur-ship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. The Academyof Management, 49(1), 27–48.

Hardy, C. (1994). Underorganized interorganizational domains: Thecase of refugee systems. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science,30(3), 278–296.

Hays, S. (1994). Structure and agency and the sticky problem ofculture. Sociological Theory, 12(1), 57–72.

Holm, P. (1995). The dynamics of institutionlisation: Transformationprocesses in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 40, 398–422.

Jepperson, R. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects andinstitutionalism. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), Thenew institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163).Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutionalwork. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.),The sage handbook of organization studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Lawrence, T. B., Winn, I. M., & Devereaux Jennings, P. (2001). Thetemporal dynamics of institutionalization. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 26(4), 624–626.

Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. (2007). New practice creation: Aninstitutional perspective on innovation. Organization Studies,28(7), 993–1012.

Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. (2004). Institutionalentrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacyin Canada. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 657–679.

Massey, D., Quintas, P., & Wield, D. (1992). High tech fantasies:Science parks in society, science and space. London: Routledge.

Mutch, A. (2007). Reflexivity and the institutional entrepreneur: Ahistorical exploration. Organization Studies, 28(7), 1123–1140.

Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization.Organization Studies, 13, 563–588.

Powell, W. W. (1991). Expanding the scope of institutional analysis.In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalismin organizational analysis (pp. 183–202). Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study in the sociologyof formal organization. Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.

Seo, M.-G., & Creed, D. W. E. (2002). Institutional contradictions,praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective.Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 222–247.

Siegel, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Assessing the impactof University Science Parks on research productivity: Exploratoryfirm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. InternationalJournal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1357–1369.

Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1993). Institutional conditions fordiffusion. Theory and Society, 22, 487–511.

Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). Institutionalization ofinstitutional theory. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord(Eds.), The handbook of organization studies (pp. 175–190).Thousand Oaks: Sage.

UKSPA. (1996). The United Kingdom science park association annualreport. Birmingham.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research; design and methods. NewburyPark: Sage.

Zilber, T. B. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay betweenactions, meanings, and actors: The case of a rape crisis center inIsrael. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 234–254.

Zucker, L. G. (1988). Where do institutional patterns come from?Organizations as actors in social systems. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.),Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environ-ment (pp. 23–52). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.