Institution


 * Definitions and history**

The term “institution” appeared in English in the 15th century (Williams, 1985, p. 167-8) and is defined as “the action of instituting or establishing; setting on foot or in operation; foundation; ordainment; the fact of being instituted” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2010). Its Latin roots are represented in some early uses of the term, which include references to Roman laws and church practices (Oxford English Dictionary, 2010). Other definitions of “institution” suggest its fixed nature or something of common importance; among them:
 * 1) “the giving of form or order to a thing” (2a),
 * 2) “the established order by which anything is regulated” (2b),
 * 3) “training, instruction, education, teaching” (4),
 * 4) “An established law, custom, usage, practice, organization, or other element in the political or social life of a people; a regulative principle or convention subservient to the needs of an organized community or the general ends of civilization” (6a),
 * 5) “Something having the fixity or importance of a social institution; a well-established or familiar practice or object” (6b) and;
 * 6) “An establishment, organization, or association, instituted for the promotion of some object, esp. one of public or general utility, religious, charitable, educational, etc., e.g. a church, school, college, hospital, asylum, reformatory, mission, or the like” (7a).

The word itself has expanded to fit these definitions over several centuries. By the 20th century, roughly 500 years after the term appeared in the English language, “institution has become the normal term for any organized element of a society” (Williams, 1985, p. 168). Institutions have become a cross-discipline area of study, spurring theory and new terms such as “institutionalize.”


 * Institutions vs. organizations**

It is worth noting here that although “institution” is correctly used to signify customs, traditions, or well-established objects (under the definitions given by the Oxford English Dictionary, marriage, the law, and the Chicago Cubs are all institutions; the Oxford English Dictionary itself could also be considered an institution), the term is used most often to refer to organizations. This is likely because of institutional theory’s roots in sociology and organizational studies, as well as the fact that organizations lend themselves to the study of institutions. However, the terms are not synonymous; we are reminded that, in order to become an institution, organizations must have a special character or distinction (see Selznick, 1957 and Selznick, 1996), or fit into the characteristics of institutions described below. Organizations also exist in “institutional environments ” as described by Meyer and Rowan (1977, p. 346-7). In communication literature, studies of institutions often take place in an organizational context; this entry will do the same. (Scholars use institutional theory in a variety of contexts. For a discussion of institutional change in a professional field, see Munir’s 2005 study of the increasingly digitized field of photography. For an institutional theory of organizational communication approach to healthcare example, see Lammers & Barbour, 2007.


 * History of Institutions**

Lammers and Barbour give a brief summary of research on institutions over the past one hundred years. In their summary, they note that the study of institutions in an organizational context is often attributed to Weber (1906-1924/1968), who emphasized the mandatory nature of institutions. Other definitions of institutions include Commons’ (1950, p.27) understanding of institutions as rules or expectations imposed by collective action on individuals, and Giddens (1979, p.17) described institutions as practices “with the greatest time-space extension” (see additional references in Lammers & Barbour, 2006, p. 358-9). As evidenced by the definitions provided here, the various meanings of the word “institution” have slightly different interpretations. The term is admittedly “slippery” (Lammers & Barbour, 2006, p. 358), and this may render it more difficult to objectively identify institutions, as our aforementioned examples (marriage, the law, and the Chicago Cubs) may be of varying importance to different groups of people. The definitions provided here do suggest a few characteristics that all institutions share; specifically, institutions are fixed or established, enduring, and powerful (see Lammers & Barbour, 2006, p. 357-8 for an explication of institution).


 * Characteristics of Institutions**

Lammers & Barbour (2006) proposed six common aspects of institutions drawn from organizational sociology and organizational communication. In doing so, they acknowledged that they have identified features that were particularly relevant to organizational institutions such as markets, professions and governments rather than other kinds of institutions such as marriage and family (p. 363). In their view, institutions are:
 * 1) manifested in practice;
 * 2) manifested in belief;
 * 3) involve individuals as actors and carriers of belief;
 * 4) experience low rates of change;
 * 5) written, archived or otherwise formalized; and
 * 6) reflect a rational purpose (p. 363-4)

While institutions differ greatly, they are universally composed of persons, beliefs/rules, and practices. The most significant and enduring characteristic of an institutions is that it "has an enduring and fixed character" (Lammers & Barbour, p. 358). This solidity is what makes institutions more powerful than organizations, and what contributes to much of their negative connotation in popular discourses.


 * Institutionalized Rules and Hierarchies**

The concept of institutionalized rules appeared in the 1960s and 70s, represented as expectations that may be reinforced through public opinion or law (see Starbuck, 1976 and Berger & Luckmann, 1976, in Meyer and Rowan, 1977, p. 341). In a pivotal article, Meyer and Rowan (1977) expand on the idea of institutional rules, arguing that these rules have the power to affect organizational structure. They argue that many components of formal structures are really “rationalized myths,” institutionalized practices that are believed to lead to certain outcomes (p. 343-344). These rational myths may or may not actually improve performance, but the adoption of myths result in more formal organization and allow an organization to gain legitimacy and increase its chances of survival (p. 360-1).

Rules and hierarchies are also reinforced through an emphasis on procedural and bureaucratic efficiency. In his discussion of the bureaucratic style, Robert Hariman (2010) characterizes the ethos of bureaucracy as highly rational, efficient, and impersonal. It is the epitome of “office culture,” and much more reliant on mediums other than language; written or electronic communication. This efficiency is also achieved through a clear hierarchical power structure - as opposed to a networked power structure one might find in an organization or system. The power dynamics in institutions are a critical component of the communication practices that occur within the institution.


 * "Institutional isomorphism"**

If organizations must adopt rational myths in order to appear legitimate, these organizations may become more similar over time. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) studied **institutional isomorphism**, the process by which organizations in the same environment begin to resemble each other. They identify **three catalysts for institutional isomorphic change**.
 * 1) The first is __**coercive isomorphism**__, which refers to the pressures or influences forced on the organizations. These pressures may come from informal or formal channels – one example of coercive isomorphism would be a law that requires the organization to change or adopt different practices (p. 150).
 * 2) The second is __**mimetic isomorphism**__, in which uncertain organizations imitate other organizations in practices or customs, particularly if other organizations appear successful (p. 151-2).
 * 3) The third mechanism, __**normative isomorphism**__, refers to professionalization; examples may include hiring procedures or the expectation for people of a certain profession to have the same degree or background in order to appear legitimate (p. 152-3).

The authors then posit a number of predictors of isomorphic change (see p. 154-6). It is worth noting, however, that as is the case with Meyer and Rowan and rationalized myth, institutional isomorphic processes persist, often without proof that they can boost effectiveness (p. 153).


 * Institutionalization**

The term // institutionalization // refers to a process of a concepts or idea gaining a level of structure and normativity to where it gets embedded within a group of people, or within an existing institution. Rami Kaplan (2015) examines the institutionalization of the notion of Corporate Responsibility, which has led to many business instituting practices and procedures that both prevents government intervention and produces a positive public image. This process has also been used in correlation with // corporatization. // The two concepts both carry a negative connotation as they are associated with co-optation of sincere efforts. Many social movements protest corporate efforts to integrate social justice into corporate or institutional procedures. While not all forms of institutionalization have this negative association, the suspicion of institutions interfering with extra-institutional practices demonstrates the fear and mistrust that many people have toward institutions.

Kenneth Burke's (1984) theory of // bureaucratization, // parallels both //corporatization// and //institutionalization.// Burke theorized a process where, "a n imaginative possibility (usually at the start Utopian) is bureaucratized when it is embodied** i ** n the realities of a social texture" (p. 225). He saw this as detrimental to any proposal of alternatives modes of thinking or practice - for example, modern methods of knowledge production or scientific inquiry could be considered bureaucratizations of values like curiosity, invention, or wisdom (Wible, p. 179). Bureaucratization of the imaginary for Burke usually begins as an ideal, but ends up becoming so solidified in the rigidity of institutions and procedures, that the ideal is never allowed to be realized.


 * Institutions and Communication Studies: Implications**

Though many of these foundational articles on institutions emerge from sociology, the role of communication in institutions is worth further exploration. In their institutional theory of organizational communication, Lammers and Barbour (2006) use the aforementioned six common aspects of institutions to derive implications for organizational communication scholar**s**. The five propositions in institutional theory of organizational communication are:
 * 1) Communication sustains institutions;
 * 2) Communication aligns organizing with institutions;
 * 3) Institutions operate in organizing through formal communication;
 * 4) The success of boundary-spanning communication depends on the presence of institutions; and
 * 5) Institutional hierarchy is manifested in organizing (p. 368-9).

Much work is still do be done on institutional rhetoric; Finet, 2001, p. 274-276; Cheney, 1991, and Smith & Smith, 1990, and Thompson, 2013 are all excellent examples.

include component="comments" page="page:Institution" limit="10"


 * References**

Barbour, J. B., & Lammers, J. C. (2007). Health care institutions, communication, and physicians’ experience of managed care: A multilevel analysis. //Management Communication Quarterly//, 21, (2), 201-231.

Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. (1967). //The Social Construction of Reality.// New York: Doubleday.

Burke, K. (1984). //Attitudes Toward History, Third Edition.// Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cheney, G. (1991). //Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple identities//. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press

Commons, J. R. (1950). //The economics of collective action//. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. //American Sociological Review//, 48, (2), 147-160.

Finet, D. (2001). Sociopolitical environments and issues. In F.M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), //The new handbook of organizational communication: advances in theory, research, and methods//(pp. 270-290). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Giddens, A. (1979). //Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis//. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hariman, R. (2010). //Political Style: The Artistry of Power.// Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kaplan, R. (2015). Who has been regulating whom, business or society? The mid-twentieth century institutionalization of 'corporate responsibility' in the USA. //Socio-Economic Review// 13, 125-155.

Lammers, J. C. & Barbour, J. B. (2006). //An institutional theory of organizational communication//. Communication Theory, 16, 356-377.

Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. //The American Journal of Sociology//, 83, (2), 340-363.

Munir, K. A. (2005). The social construction of events: A study of institutional change in the photographic field. //Organization Studies//, 26, (1), 93-112.

Oxford English Dictionary Online. “Institution.” Retrieved June 1, 2010 from [|http://dictionary.oed.com]

Selznick, P. (1996). Institutionalism 'old' and 'new.' //Administrative Science Quarterly//, 41, (2), 270-278

Selznick, P. (1957). //Leadership in administration//. New York: Harper & Row.

Smith, C. A., & Smith, K. B. (1990). The rhetoric of political institutions. In D. L. Swanson & D. Nimmo (Eds.). //New directions in political communication: A resource book// (pp. 225-254). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Starbuck, W. H. (1976). Organizations and their environments. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), //Handbook of Industrial and organizational psychology//, 1069-1123. New York: Rand McNally.

Thompson, M. (2013). Institutional Rhetoric, Argument, and the House Un-American Activities Committee, 1955-1956. Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.

Weber, M. (1968). //Economy and society// (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Trans.). Berekeley, CA: University of California Press. (Original work published 1906-1924).

Wible, S. (2013). Talk about how your language is constructed: Kenneth Burke's vision for University-wide dialogue. In //Burke in the Archives: Using the Past to Transform the Future of Burkean Studies// (pp. 178-195). Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Williams, R. (1985). //Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society//, Revised Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.