Emirbayer and Johnson critique the failure to engage fully Bourdieu’s relational analysis in empirical work, but are weak in giving direction for rectifying the problem. Following their recommendation for studying organizations-in-fields and organizations-as-fields, I argue for the benefits of analogical comparison using case studies of organizations as the units of analysis. Doing so maximizes the number of Bourdieusian concepts that can be deployed in an explanation. Further, it maximizes discovery of the oft-neglected links among history, competition, resources, sites of contestation and struggle, relations of dominance and domination, and reproduction of inequality. Perhaps most important, case studies can identify the connection between macro-, meso-, and micro-level factors in the formation and shaping of habitus. To support my claims empirically, I draw from case study research (Vaughan The challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA, 1996; Signals and interpretive work: The role of culture in a theory of practical action. pp. 28–56, 2002) that verifies Bourdieu’s as the “Theory of Practical Action” that supplies the micro-level component to the new institutionalism (DiMaggio and Powell, Introduction. pp. 1–41, 1991).
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
We always bring to our research certain assumptions about how the world works and theories derived from our reading and research. Even though we are not by design testing those assumptions and theories, making them explicit at the outset, then looking for similarities and differences, is a good way to guard against self-fulfilling prophecies.
Scholars do combine methods but they tend to combine at the same level of analysis, not in pursuit of the macro-micro-link.
Minimally, it would include contractors, safety regulators, the White House and Congress, other government administrative departments, business partners (e.g., the Department of Defense, the Russian and Japanese space programs, research institutions, university science and engineering departments), competitors in private enterprise and foreign government defense and space programs, etc.
Formally designated as Level IV, the work group was responsible for all the hands-on engineering work for the boosters and also formal risk assessments prior to each launch, which are forwarded up the hierarchical launch decision chain.
He pointed out that the engineering analysis did not prove an association between cold temperature and O-ring erosion because the charts contained mixed, weak, and routine signals. Hadn’t erosion occurred for many reasons in the past? Wasn’t the most serious erosion on the warmest launch?
Social and economic capital no doubt influenced who was employed by NASA, who was hired at what level, and who was promoted.
Bourdieu, P. (1962). The Algerians. Boston: Beacon First printed in 1958.
Bourdieu, P. (1979). Algeria 1960. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press First printed in 1977.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press First printed in 1979.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Cambridge, MA: Polity First printed in 1984.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press First printed in 1980.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press First printed in 1982.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1996). The rules of art: Genesis and structure of the literary field. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press First printed in 1992.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press First printed in 1989.
Bourdieu, P. (2005). The social structures of the economy. New York: Polity First printed in 2000.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage.
Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1991). Institutional origins and transformations: the case of American community colleges. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 337–367). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Columbia Accident Investigation Board (2003). Report, vol.1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Colyvas, J. A., & Powell, W. W. (2006). Roads to institutionalization: the remaking of boundaries between public and private science. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 305–353.
Dalton, M. (1959). Men who manage. New York: Wiley.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3–21). Cambridge MA: Ballinger.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organization fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–41). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dobbin, F., & Dowd, T. (2000). The market that anti-trust built: Public policy, private coercion, and railroad acquisitions, 1825–1922. American Sociological Review, 65, 635–657.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. New York: Anchor.
Goldstone, J. A., & Useem, B. (1999). Prison riots as micro-revolutions. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 985–1029.
Hallett, T. (2003). Symbolic power and organizational culture. Sociological Theory, 21, 128–149.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps, and glissandos in recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6, 153–168.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682.
Merton, R. K. (1995). Opportunity structure: The emergence, diffusion, and differentiation of a sociological concept, 1930s-1950s. In F. Adler & W. S. Laufer (Eds.), The legacy of anomie theory (pp. 3–78). New Brunswick: Transaction.
Mohr, J., & Guerra-Pearson, F. (2007). The differentiation of institutional space. In W. W. Powell & D. L. Jones (Eds.), How institutions change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Morrill, C. (1995). The executive way. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Perrow, C. (2002). Wealth, power, and the origins of corporate capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 829–872.
Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Anderssen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. New York: Sage In press.
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sallaz, J., & Zavisca, J. (2007). Bourdieu in American sociology, 1980–2004. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 21–41.
Scott, W. R. (1991). Unpacking institutional arguments. In W. W. Powell & P. J. Dimaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 164–182). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Scott, W. R. (1994). Conceptualizing organizational fields: Linking organizations and societal systems. In H. Derlien, U. Gerhardt, & F. W. Scharpf (Eds.), Systemrationalitat und Partialinteresse (pp. 203–221). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Scott, W. R. (1998). Rational, natural, and open systems. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Scott, W. R., Reuf, M., Mendel, P. J., & Coronna, C. (2000). Institutional change and health care organizations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Vaughan, D. (1992). Theorizing: The heuristics of case analysis. In C. Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds.), What is a case? (pp. 173–202). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vaughan, D. (1999). The dark side of organizations: Mistake, misconduct, and disaster. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 271–305.
Vaughan, D. (2002). Signals and interpretive work: The role of culture in a theory of practical action. In K. A. Cerulo (Ed.), Culture in mind: Toward a sociology of culture and cognition (pp. 28–56). New York: Routledge.
Wacquant, L. (2003). Body and soul: Notebooks of an apprentice boxer. New York: Oxford University Press First printed in 2000.
Wacquant, L. (Ed.) (2004). Bourdieu in the field. Special issue. Ethnography 5.
Wacquant, L. (2005). Habitus. In J. Beckert & M. Zafirovski (Eds.), International encyclopedia of economic sociology (pp. 315–319). London: Routledge.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.
Zucker, L. G. (1977). Institutionalization and cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42, 726–743.
About this article
Cite this article
Vaughan, D. Bourdieu and organizations: the empirical challenge. Theor Soc 37, 65–81 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-007-9056-7
- Relational Analysis
- Organization Field
- Organizational Analysis
- Symbolic Capital
- Analogical Comparison