This very scholarly and complex publication deals with a niche, and perhaps an elusive, aspect of organizational studies, namely “institutional logics”. Sensibly, and in deference to readers not fully immersed in the particular field, the volume includes definitions of the key concepts involved, a narrative of what has been achieved so far, where the field is now among other alternative fields, and what remains to be done. The introductory chapter is comprehensive and accessible. The figure illustrating the complex logic of the books chapters is particularly useful, and perhaps essential, given the complexity and interconnectivity of the chapter contents and the arguments being made by the authors. This figure is cleverly used throughout the book as a unifying device.
The authors describe their work as meta-theoretical rather than a literature review. They argue that it leads to new theory, or to at least to a new perspective on existing theories. They focus on new conceptualizations of structure and agency in organizational contexts – a device likely to attract readers dissatisfied with dominant theories from sociology or social psychology.
The authors describe their publication as a comprehensive primer on the topic of institutional logics, saying that it is intended for both junior and senior scholars who are keen to advance theory further in this particular field by using their meta-theories and sets of models as presented and argued for in the book.
The final chapter of eight revisits the main argument and discusses why and how their ideas are significant among other theoretical models about organizations and their dynamics. They claim that their work brings order to the extant ambiguous and contradictory literature field through application of an elaborate model of institutional logic. There is no doubt that advanced scholarship always has a need for new and alternative perspectives, regardless of the field. This particular book provides such a service. The arguments and conclusions may not be fully accepted by scholars who hold on dearly to different perspectives in organizational studies, but it certainly offers much to think about and much to argue about among scholars who thrive on arguments about the application of theoretical models.
