What are MicroFoundations? Why and How to Study Them?

Since the publication of foundational analyses in the late 1970s and early 1980s (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Zucker, 1977), neo-institutional theory (NIT) has provided a platform for an enormous body of work in organizational studies. Its enduring vitality is attested both by the very large number of citations to these works and the steady stream of special issues in journals and edited volumes focusing on this theoretical tradition (e.g., Greenwood, Oliver, Lawrence, & Meyer, 2017; Powell & DiMaggio, 1991; Zucker, 1988).

Despite its generativity, the NIT has drawn fire from many critics over the years as well, and one of the most frequent criticisms is its “lack of agency” (see DiMaggio, 1988). What, exactly, this often-used phrase means is not always clear – inadequate specification of causal mechanisms, independent action given conformity pressures, or something else? At the most general, it appears to connote critics’ dissatisfaction with early formulations, perhaps deriving from inattention to how institutions function as a feature of collectivities that demand institutional acceptance by individuals for entry and continued participation.¹ Lurking in the background may also be the longstanding tensions about over-socialized conceptions of persons.