2017 Sociology 259: World Culture & Society (Winter 2016-17)

Sociology 259:  World Culture and World Society

Winter 2017, Class #69865

Mondays 2:00-4:50pm in SSPB 4250

Instructors

David John Frank, SSPA 4107.  Office hours:  Wednesday 1:30-3:00pm.  Phone: 4-1117.  frankd@uci.edu

Evan Schofer, SSPB 4271.  Office hours:  Wednesday 2:00-3:00 and by appointment.  schofer @ uci.edu

Introduction

World society theory is a perspective on globalization that examines global culture and international institutions.  It is a type of institutional theory that pays particular attention to culture, drawing on phenomenological traditions within sociology that emphasize social construction.  Institutional theories, in the broadest sense, shift attention to the political, organizational, and cultural contexts that shape social life.  Some institutionalisms conceptualize environments in terms of networks and resources, within which social actors are embedded.  More radical cultural and phenomenological variants of institutionalism argue that the core features of modern social actors, themselves, are largely products of social context, rather than existing a priori as many theories assume.  This course explores such issues, focusing on applications to globalization and international issues.

The Irvine Comparative Sociology Workshop (ICSW)

This course overlaps with the ICSW, which meets weekly on Mondays from 2-3:30.  The workshop offers exposure to current research on issues directly related to the class, as well as opportunities to present one’s own research (if applicable).  Course readings will be distributed via the ICSW mailing list.  To sign up go to the ICSW website or go to the following link:

https://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/icsw-info

Readings

Most readings can be found online via the UCI webfiles system.  Go to: http://webfiles.uci.edu to register.  A UCI password is required.  Complete reading assignments prior to the class in which material will be covered.  You will get much more out of class if you have already finished the readings.

Link to readings (password required): https://webfiles.uci.edu/schofer/classes/2017soc259WS/readings/

Assignments and Evaluation

Assignments.  There will be five short assignments, each worth 15% of your final grade (75% total).

In-Class Participation.  You are expected to show up contribute to class discussion.  Participation counts for 25% of your final grade.

Custom independent study option.  Students conducting advanced research on topics relevant to class may negotiate alternative grading arrangements, related to pursuit of ongoing research.  Please contact us if you wish to pursue an alternative grading option.

There is no final exam in this course.

Assignments received late will be marked down one partial grade (i.e., and A becomes an A-, C+ becomes a C) per day past the due date.  Extensions will be granted for legitimate reasons if requested in advance – before the due date.

Your final grade will be computed based on the percentage weightings indicated.  In the event of a borderline grade, I may use my discretion in adjusting grades based on course participation, improvement, and effort (or lack thereof).  Incompletes will not be given, except in unusual circumstances.

Schedule & Reading Assignments

* = optional reading.  NOT required.

Instruction:  Jan 9-March 17; Holidays:  Jan 16, Feb 20

Week 1:  January 9  Introduction

Schofer, Evan, Ann Hironaka, David Frank, and Wesley Longhofer.  2012.  “Sociological Institutionalism and World Society.”  In Nash, K, A. Scott, and E. Amenata (eds).  The New Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology.  Oxford, UK:  Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Meyer, John W. and Brian Rowan.  1977.  “Institutionalized Organizations:  Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.”  American Journal of Sociology, 83,2: 340-63.

*Excerpt:  Foundational ideas from social psychology:  context and conformity

*Jepperson, Ronald L.  1991.  “Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism.”  Pp. 143-163 in Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio (eds.).  The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.  Chicago, IL:  University of Chicago Press.

Intellectual antecedent:  Social construction & phenomenology

*Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann.  1966.  The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.  Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.
* — Part II:  “Society as Objective Reality.”  Useful Excerpts:  53-55, 58-62, 64-67mid, 70-82, 85-86, 88-90, 92-97, 105-108, 110-115, 121-125, 128.
* — Part III:  “Society as Subjective Reality.”  Useful Excerpts:  129-136, 142bot-143, 145, 149, 150bot-151, 154bot-161, 164-165, 168mid-173, 175-176, 178bot-183.

 

Week 2:  January 16:  MLK Jr. Holiday:  No Meeting.

 

Week 3:  January 23:  Actors and “others” in macro sociology

Meyer, John W., John Boli, George Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez.  1997.  “World Society and the Nation-State.”  American Journal of Sociology, 103,1:144-181.

Meyer, John W.  2010. “World Society, Institutional Theories, and the Actor.”  Annual Review of Sociology, 36:1-20.

John Meyer and Ronald Jepperson.  2000.  “The “Actors” of Modern Society: Cultural Rationalization and the Ongoing Expansion of Social Agency.”  Sociological Theory, 18, 1: 100-120.

Koenig, Matthias, and Julian Dierkes. 2011. “Conflict in the World Polity – Neo-Institutional Perspectives.” Acta Sociologica 54(1): 5-25.

Unpacking Actors in Institutional Theory

*Hallett, Tim and Marc J. Ventresca. 2006. “Inhabited institutions: Social interaction and organizational form in Gouldner’s Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy.” Theory and Society 35: 213-236.

Intellectual Counterpoint:  Neo-Realism. 

*Waltz, Kenneth N.  Theory of International Politics.  New York:  McGraw Hill.

Intellectual Counterpoint:  World-System Theory.

*Chirot, Daniel and Thomas D. Hall.  1982.  “World-System Theory.” Annual Review of Sociology, 8:81-106.

Assignment #1 Due:  Reading Reflections

Length: Approx. 2 pages, double-spaced.  Write 2 pages of reflections on the readings for the week. Articulate how the conception of “actors” in institutional theory differs from other perspectives you have studied (be specific). Discuss how one might empirically adjudicate between and/or reconcile the different conceptions. Beyond that, you may discuss anything you wish, so long as it relates to the readings.

 

Week 4:  January 30  Culture, Diffusion, and Change

David Strang and John W. Meyer.  1993.  “Institutional Conditions for Diffusion.” Theory and Society 22 (1993): 487-511.

Ronald Jepperson and John W. Meyer.  2010.  “Multiple Levels of Analysis and the Limits of Methodological Individualisms.”  Sociological Theory.

Ramirez, Francisco O., Yasemin Soysal, and Suzanne Shanahan.  1997.  “The Changing Logic of Political Citizenship: Cross-National Acquisition of Women’s Suffrage Rights, 1890 to 1990”  American Sociological Review, 62, 5.

Boyle, Elizabeth H., Minzee Kim, and Wesley Longhofer.  2015.  “Abortion Liberalization in World Society, 1960-2009.  American Journal of Sociology, 121, No. 3 (November 2015), pp. 882-913.

Intellectual antecedents:  classic organizational institutionalism

*DiMaggio, Paul, and Walter W. Powell. 1983.  “The Iron Cage Revisited:  Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.”  American Sociological Review 48, 2: 147-60.

*Dobbin, Frank.  1994.  “Cultural Models of Organization:  The Social Construction of Rational Organizing Principles.”  Pp. 117-141 in The Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives. Edited by Diana Crane. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Assignment #2 Due:  Questions

Length: Approx. 2-3 pages, double-spaced. (3 pages max).  Answer one of the following questions:  1) Develop a research design to test the predictions of world society theory versus one or more other theories (e.g., realism, world-system theory, functionalism, etc). Don’t worry about practical limitations (if necessary, imagine you have a large NSF grant to facilitate data collection, etc.).  2) In light of the Jepperson/Meyer article on “levels of analysis”: Think of an important macro-social change (the civil rights movement; waves of democratization; industrialization; or something else) and discuss some conventional explanations. Do explanations involve macro-macro causation, the “Coleman Boat”, or both? Summarize some of the macro-macro arguments or make your own.  3) Readings from this week (and the prior week) allege that individuals and organizations aren’t “conventional” social actors, but instead are entities embedded in a culture that encourages them to enact the role of being an actor. This poses some interesting challenges for empirical research. How can you tell the difference between “real” actors and those enacting being an actor? (Hint: one of the issues involves loose coupling/decoupling.) Discuss the issue, drawing upon readings from this week (and last week, if needed) AND/OR discuss empirical strategies to distinguish the two conceptions of “actors”.

 

Week 5:  February 6  World culture and the construction of organization and action

Bromley, Patricia and John W. Meyer.  Hyper-Organization:  Global organization Expansion.  Oxford University Press.

*Boli, John and George Thomas.  1999.  “Constructing World Culture:  International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875.”  Stanford University Press.

*Hironaka, Ann.  draft.  “Tokens of Power.”  Excerpt.

Related Traditions:  Transnational Social Movements / Advocacy Networks

*Khagram, Sanjeev, James V. Riker, and Kathryn Sikkink (eds.).  2002.  Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms.
— Chapter 1: “From Santiago to Seattle: Transnational Advocacy Groups Restructuring World Politics” by Sanjeev Khagram, James V. Riker, and Kathryn Sikkink.
— Chapter 2: “Infrastructures for Change:  Transnational Organizations, 1953-93”

*Keck, Margaret E. and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.  Chapters 1-2.

*Smith, Jackie and Hank Johnston. 2002. Globalization and Resistance: Transnational Dimensions of Social Movements. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.

 

Week 6:  February 13  Loose coupling & consequences

Hafner-Burton, Emilie and Kiyoteru Tsutsui. 2005. “Human Rights in a Globalizing World: The Paradox of Empty Promises.” American Journal of Sociology, 110: 1373-411.

Michael Elliot, The institutionalization of human rights and its discontents.  Cultural Sociology.

Schofer, Evan and Ann Hironaka.  2005.  “The Effects of World Society on Environmental Protection Outcomes.”  Social Forces, 84, 1:25-47.

Foundational Ideas:  Loose Coupling

*Weick, Karl E.  1976.  “Educational Organizations as Loosely-Coupled Systems.”  Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1:1-19.

*Bromley, Patricia and Walter W. Powell.  2012.  “From Smoke and Mirrors to Walking the Talk: Decoupling in the Contemporary World.”  The Academy of Management Annals, 2012:1-48.

Assignment #3 Due:  More reading questions

Length: Approx. 2-3 pages, double-spaced. (3 pages max)  The readings for this week focus on the idea of “loose coupling” or “decoupling”… the idea that formal organizational policies and rules may be disconnected from behavior, or more generally that parts of an organization are only weakly connected.  Answer one of the following questions:  1) Drawing on class readings (and potentially optional readings by Weick and Bromley/Powell) discuss the theoretical concept of loose coupling, and its role in institutional theories. How does it relate to the theory’s conception of actorhood?  2) Some scholars have criticized idea of loose coupling in world society theory as a “cop out,” because the theory can never be “wrong.” If international institutions or global culture appear to have direct consequences on the ground, we say “Aha! Institutions are important.” If the consequences are less obvious, we say “Aha! Institutions are important… but loosely coupled.”  Drawing on readings from the course (and others, if you wish), develop an argument for OR against this criticism of world society theory. EITHER: Explain why this represents a major flaw in the theory; OR, take the opposite side and argue that loose coupling is an important substantive prediction of the theory; a “feature”, not a “bug”.  3) Develop a research design that explores the effects of world society on practice, not just policy. Discuss whether loose coupling is likely to occur, and propose one or more hypotheses regarding factors that are likely to promote (or inhibit) changes in practice (versus loose coupling).

 

Week 7:  February 20

NO MEETING:  President’s Day.

 

Week 8:  February 27  Global environmentalism

Hironaka, Ann.  Greening the Globe:  World Society and Social Change.  Cambridge University Press.

World Society and the Environment

*Frank, David J., Ann M. Hironaka, and Evan Schofer. 2000. “The Nation State and the Natural Environment, 1900-1995.” American Sociological Review, 65 (Feb): 96-116.

*Frank, David John, Ann Hironaka, and Evan Schofer. 2015. “World Society.” Pp. 175-82 in Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Governance and Politics, edited by P. H. Pattberg and F. Zelli. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

*Longhofer, Wesley and Evan Schofer. 2010. “National and Global Origins of Environmental Association.” American Sociological Review, 75: 505-533.

Assignment #4 Due:  “Greening the Globe” questions

Length: Approx. 2 pages, double-spaced.  Answer one of the following questions:  1)  In Chapter 2, Hironaka provides an account of the origins of the global environmental regime. What, according to Hironaka, led to the emergence of the regime? To what extent do actors & agency play a role?  2) The book engages with the social movements literature in different ways. In Chapters 1 & 2, social movements arguments are a potential competing explanation of institutional emergence and social change. In Chapter 4, Hironaka incorporates social movements into the concept of Agents, essentially bringing social movements into world society theory as one mechanism. Briefly describe these alternative approaches (movements as “actors” versus movements as “agents”). Either: (a) develop a research design to differentiate among these views OR (b) argue in favor of one view or the other, providing examples to support your argument.  3)  Chapter 5 explores how institutional structures and cultural meanings affect actors and their interests. Discuss how institutional structures can transform interests. Give examples.

 

Week 9:  March 6  The Global University

Frank, David John and John W. Meyer.  Draft.  The University and the Knowledge Society.

Baker, Dave.  2014.  “The Schooled Society:  The Educational Transformation of Global Culture.”  Stanford University Press.  Introduction.

*Schofer, Evan, and John W. Meyer. 2005. “The World-Wide Expansion of Higher Education in the Twentieth Century.” American Sociological Review, 70:898-920.

*Frank, David John and Jay Gabler.  “Reconstructing the University:  Worldwide Shifts in Academia in the 21st Century.”  Stanford University Press.

*Meyer, John W.  1977.  “The Effects of Education as an Institution.”  American Journal of Sociology.

*Meyer, John W., Francisco O. Ramirez, David J. Frank, and Evan Schofer.  2006.  “Higher Education as an Institution.”  In Gumport, P. (ed).  The Sociology of Higher Education.  Baltimore, MD:  The Johns Hopkins University Press.

 

Week 10:  March 13  Science / Knowledge

Drori, Gili, John W. Meyer, Francisco O. Ramirez, and Evan Schofer.  2003.  Science in the Modern World Polity:  Institutionalization and Globalization.  Stanford University Press.

Related Tradition:  Science and Technology Studies:  Performativity

*Donald MacKenzie.  2006.  An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets.  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  Chapters 1, 2.

Related Tradition:  Foucaultian Analyses of Knowledge

*Foucault, Michel.  1971.  The Order of Things.  [excerpt]

*Ferguson, James.  1990.  The Anti-Politics Machine:  Development, Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho.  Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press.  [excerpt]

Assignment #5 Due:  Research Design

Short Assignment #5: Research Design

Length: Approx. 3 pages, double-spaced (4 pages max).  Develop a research design to test one or more theoretical predictions of world society theory. You may argue for or against world society, and you may choose any topic that you wish.

The goal is to link world society theory to important empirical outcomes. Don’t let feasibility issues prevent you from coming up with a plan that speaks to big issues. To facilitate your creativity, you may imagine that you have an ample grant and access to any sort of data sources, allowing you to pursue an ambitious project. This is about coming up with a “thought experiment” that directly addresses theory – not planning a doable dissertation. (Though it is fine if the project is in fact feasible.)

Many of the best research designs involve competing theories. You may wish to choose a topic that allows you to contrast the predictions of world society theory with that of another major theoretical perspective. (This is not a requirement – it is possible to come up with a good project that does not involve competing theories… for instance, exploring mechanisms of world society theory, or concepts like loose coupling or actorhood.)

Your research design need not be wholly original. You can draw upon the strategies used in prior studies. If you need recommendations, let us know.  You may write things up however you wish… but I suggest an outline to aid your thinking:

1. Introduction: Explain the topic
2. Theory/Arguments: Briefly summarize the relevant theoretical perspectives and develop empirically testable arguments. Be sure to state at least one clear empirical proposition or hypothesis; many of you will end up having several hypotheses (often deriving from competing perspectives). Given space constraints, you probably won’t have time to go into detail about competing perspectives. That is OK. After all, this is a class on world society. But, be sure to identify the competing perspectives and include a couple of sentences justifying related hypotheses.
3. Data & Methods: Discuss the empirical evidence that you need to test your arguments, and the type of investigation or methodological approach to answer your questions.
4. Conclusion: You don’t really need one… but you should end by clarifying how the project advances the literature.

I encourage you to bounce ideas off of your peers or me. To that end, I will provide comments via email if you send me some preliminary notes on your project in advance (a few days before the due date).

 

 

 

Additional Topics of Interest (NOT REQUIRED):

Education as an Institutional Locus of Social Construction

Meyer, John W.  1977.  “The Effects of Education as an Institution.”  American Journal of Sociology.

Meyer, John W., Francisco O. Ramirez, David J. Frank, and Evan Schofer.  2006.  “Higher Education as an Institution.”  In Gumport, P. (ed).  The Sociology of Higher Education.  Baltimore, MD:  The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Meyer, John W. and Brian Rowan.  1978.  “The Structure of Educational Organizations.”  Pp. 78-109 in Environments and Organizations, edited by Marshall Meyer et al.  Jossey-Bass.

Frank, David John, and Jay Gabler. 2006. Reconstructing the University: Worldwide Shifts in Academia in the 20th Century. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

World Culture

Boli, John, and George M. Thomas.  1999.  Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations since 1875.  Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Boli, John.  2005.  “Contemporary Developments in World Culture.”  International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 46, 5/6:383-404.

Related Tradition:  Global Culture

Robertson, Roland.  1992.  Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture.  London:  Sage.

National Institutional Structures/Trajectories

Jepperson, Ronald. 2002. “Political Modernities: Disentangling Two Underlying Dimensions of Institutional Differentiation.” Sociological Theory. 20(1):61-85.

Jepperson, Ronald and John Meyer. 1991. “The Public Order and the Construction of Formal Organizations.” In Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio (eds.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schofer, Evan and Marion Fourcade Gourinchas.  The Structural Contexts of Civic Engagement:  Voluntary Association Membership in Comparative Perspective.”  American Sociological Review, 66 (Dec): 806-828.

Fourcade, Marion and Evan Schofer.  Working Paper.  “The Multifaceted Nature of Civic Engagement:  Forms of Political Activity in Comparative Perspective.”

Dobbin, Frank.  1997.  Forging Industrial Policy: The United States, Britain, and France in the Railway Age.  Cambridge University Press.  [excerpt]

The Social Construction of the Individual

Meyer, John W.  1987.  “The Self and the Life Course.”  In Thomas, George et al.  1987.  Institutional Structure Constructing State, Society, and Individual.  Newberry Park, CA:  Sage.

Meyer, John W.  1986. “Myths of Socialization and Personality,” pp. 212-225 in T. Heller et al. (eds), Reconstructing Individualism.

Frank, David J., Bayliss Camp, and Steven A. Boutcher.  2010.  “Worldwide Trends in the Criminal Regulation of Sex, 1945-2005.”  American Sociological Review.

Frank, David J. and John W. Meyer.  2002.  “The Profusion of Individual Roles and Identities in the Postwar Period.”  Sociological Theory, 20, 1:86-105.

Related Tradition:  Goffman

Goffman, Erving.  1959.  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.  Anchor Books.  [excerpt]

Goffman, Erving.  1974.  Frame Analysis:  An Essay on the Organization of Experience.  London:  Harper and Row.  [excerpt]

Related Tradition:  Foucault

Focault, Michel. [1976] (1998). The History of Sexuality Vol. 1: The Will to Knowledge. London: Penguin.  [excerpt]

Conceptual and Research Issues

Schofer, Evan and Elizabeth McEneaney.  2003.  “Methodological Strategies and Tools for the Study of Globalization.”  Chapter 2 in Drori, Gili, John W. Meyer, Francisco O. Ramirez, and Evan Schofer.  Science in the Modern World Polity:  Institutionalization and Globalization.  Stanford University Press.

Jepperson, Ronald L.  Working Paper.  “Relations Among Different Theoretical Imageries”

Ambiguity and learning

Strang, David.  2010.  Learning By Example: Imitation and Innovation at a Global Bank.  Princeton, NY:  Princeton University Press.
— Introduction: “Setting the Scene:  Benchmarking a Bank.”
* — Chapter 1: “Benchmarking as a Management Technique.”
* — Chapter 5: “The Construction of a Reference Group.”
— Chapter 9: “Some Lessons from the Search for Best Practice.”

Hironaka, Ann.  Chapter from work in progress: Tokens of Power.

Foundational ideas:  The Problem of Organizational “Learning”

*Fischhoff, Baruch.  1982.  “For Those Condemned to Study the Past:  Heuristics and Biases in Hindsight.”  Pp. 335-354 (Chapter 23) in Kahneman, Daniel, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky (eds.).  1982.  Judgment Under Uncertainty:  Heuristics and Biases.  Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press.

*Daniel A. Levinthal and James G. March.  1993.  “The Myopia of Learning.”  Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, Special Issue: Organizations, Decision Making and Strategy.

*March, J. G. and J. P. Olsen.  1975. “The Uncertainty of the Past: Organizational Learning Under Ambiguity.” European Journal of Political Research, 3: 147-171.

*March, James G., Lee S. Sproull, and Michal Tamuz, “Learning from Samples of One or Fewer”, Organization Science, 2 (1991) 1-13.

World Society, movements, and loose coupling

Tsutsui, Kiyoteru and Hwa Ji Shin.  2008.  Global Norms, Local Activism, and Social Movement Outcomes:  Global Human Rights and Residents of Japan.”  Social Problems, 55, 3:391-418.

Longhofer, Wesley and Evan Schofer.  2010.  “The Origins of Environmental Association.”  American Sociological Review.

*Tsutsui, Kiyoteru.  “Rights Make Might:  Global Human Rights and Minority Movements in Japan.”  Working Paper.

*Tsutsui, Kiyoteru. 2006. “Redressing Past Human Rights Violations: Global Dimensions of Contemporary Social Movements.” Social Forces 85(1): 331-354.

Related Traditions:  Transnational Social Movements / Advocacy Networks

Khagram, Sanjeev, James V. Riker, and Kathryn Sikkink (eds.).  2002.  Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms.
— Chapter 1: “From Santiago to Seattle: Transnational Advocacy Groups Restructuring World Politics” by Sanjeev Khagram, James V. Riker, and Kathryn Sikkink.
— Chapter 2: “Infrastructures for Change:  Transnational Organizations, 1953-93”

*Keck, Margaret E. and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.  Chapters 1-2.

*Smith, Jackie and Hank Johnston. 2002. Globalization and Resistance: Transnational Dimensions of Social Movements. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.

Related Tradition:  Framing

*Benford, Robert D., and David A. Snow. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611-639.

Related Tradition:  The Construction of Social Problems

*Gusfield. Joseph.  1980.  The Culture of Public Problems:  Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order.  Chicago, IL:  University of Chicago Press.  [excerpt]

Old Week 4

Meyer, John W.  2009.  “Reflections:  Institutional Theory and World Society.”  Chapter 2 in World Society: The Writings of John W. Meyer.  Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press.

Ramirez, Francisco O., Yasemin Soysal, and Suzanne Shanahan.  1997.  “The Changing Logic of Political Citizenship: Cross-National Acquisition of Women’s Suffrage Rights, 1890 to 1990”  American Sociological Review, 62, 5.

*Simmons, Beth A., Frank Dobbin, and Geoffrey Garrett.  2008.  The Global Diffusion of Markets and Democracy.  Cambridge University Press.

*Schofer, Evan and Wes Longhofer.  2011.  “The Structural Sources of Association.”  American Journal of Sociology.

*Boli, John and Frank Lechner.  2002.  “Globalization and World Culture.” In the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, edited by Neil J. Smelser and Paul M. Baltes.  Oxford: Elsevier.

*Meyer, John W.  1987.  “Ontology and Rationalization in the Modern Western Cultural Account.”  In Thomas, George et al.  1987.  Institutional Structure Constructing State, Society, and Individual.  Newberry Park, CA:  Sage.

*Meyer, John W., John Boli, George Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez.  1997.  “World Society and the Nation-State.”  American Journal of Sociology.  Vol 103, 1 (July 1997): 144-181.

Related Tradition:  Constructivism in Political Science

*Jepperson, Ronald L., Alexander Wendt, and Peter Katzenstein. 1996. “Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security.” Pp. 33-78 in The Culture of National Security, edited by Peter Katzenstein. New York: Columbia University Press.

*Finnemore, Martha.  1996.  “Norms, Culture, and World Politics:  Insights from Sociology’s Neo-institutionalism.”  International Organization, 50, 2:325-347.

Intellectual Counterpoint:  Neo-Realism. 

*Waltz, Kenneth N.  Theory of International Politics.  New York:  McGraw Hill.    [excerpt]

Intellectual Counterpoint:  World-System Theory.

*Chirot, Daniel and Thomas D. Hall.  1982.  “World-System Theory.” Annual Review of Sociology, 8:81-106.

Rethinking the Actor

Jepperson, Ronald L.  2002.  “The Development and Application of Sociological Neoinstitutionalism.”  Pp. 229-266 in New Directions in Contemporary Sociological Theory, edited by Joseph Berger & Morris Zelditch, Jr.  Rowman & Littlefield.

John Meyer and Ronald Jepperson.  2000.  “The “Actors” of Modern Society: Cultural Rationalization and the Ongoing Expansion of Social Agency.”   Sociological Theory, 18, 1: 100-120.

Ronald Jepperson and John W. Meyer.  2010.  “Multiple Levels of Analysis and the Limits of Methodological Individualisms.”  Sociological Theory.  (pre-publication version)

Ramirez, Francisco.  The World Society Perspective:  Concepts, Assumptions, and Strategies.  Working Paper.

*Meyer, John W.  1988.  “Society Without Culture:  A Nineteenth Century Legacy.”  Pp. 193-201 in Rethinking the Nineteenth Century, edited by Francisco Ramirez.  New York:  Greenwood Press.

*Schneiberg, Marc and Elisabeth Clemens. 2006. “The Typical Tools for the Job: Research Strategies in Institutional Analysis,” Sociological Theory 3: 195-227.

Foundational Ideas:  Phenomenology & Social Construction

*Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann.  1966.  The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.  Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.
* — Part II:  “Society as Objective Reality.”  Excerpts:  53-55, 58-62, 64-67mid, 70-82, 85-86, 88-90, 92-97, 105-108, 110-115, 121-125, 128.
* — Part III:  “Society as Subjective Reality.”  Excerpts:  129-136, 142bot-143, 145, 149, 150bot-151, 154bot-161, 164-165, 168mid-173, 175-176, 178bot-183.

*Berger, Peter L.  1963.  Invitation to Sociology:  A Humanistic Perspective.  Garden City, NY:  Anchor Books.
* — Chapter 3:  Society in Man
* — Chapter 4:  Man in Society

Related Tradition:  Historical Institutionalism

*Kathleen Thelen. 1999.  “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.”  Annual Review of Political Science.  2: 369-404.

*Amenta, Edwin and Kelly M. Ramsey.  2010.  “Institutional Theory.”  Chapter 2 in The Handbook of Politics: State and Civil Society in Global Perspective, eds. Kevin T. Leicht and J. Craig Jenkins. New York: Springer.

Related Tradition:  Economic Institutionalism

*Williamson, O.  1981.  “The Economics of Organization:  The Transaction Cost Approach.”  American Journal of Sociology, 87:.

*North, Douglass and B. Weingast.  1989.  “Constitutions and Commitment:  The Evolution of Institutions Governing Public Choice  in Seventeenth Century England.”  The Journal of Economic History, 4:803-32.

Classic Organizational Perspectives

*DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell.  1991.  “Introduction.”  Pp. 1-38 in Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio (eds.).  The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.  Chicago, IL:  University of Chicago Press.

*Zucker, Lynne G.  “The Role if Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence.”  Pp. 83-107 in Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio (eds.).  The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.  Chicago, IL:  University of Chicago Press.

*March, James G.  1984.  “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life.”  The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 3 (Sep., 1984), pp. 734-749

Classics

*Meyer, John W. and Brian Rowan.  1977.  “Institutionalized Organizations:  Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.”  American Journal of Sociology, 83,2: 340-63.

*DiMaggio, Paul, and Walter W. Powell. 1983.  “The Iron Cage Revisited:  Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.”  American Sociological Review 48, 2: 147-60.

*Dobbin, Frank.  1994.  “Cultural Models of Organization:  The Social Construction of Rational Organizing Principles.”  Pp. 117-141 in The Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives. Edited by Diana Crane. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

*Meyer, John W.  2008.  “Reflections on Institutional Theories of Organizations.”  In The Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, ed. by R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby & K. Sahlin-Andersson, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2007.

*Drori, Gili, John W. Meyer, and Hokyu Hwang (eds).  2006.  Globalization and Organization:  World Society and Organizational Change.  Oxford University Press.
* — Drori, Meyer, Hwang:  Introduction
* — Meyer, Drori, Hwang:  Chapter 1:  World Society and the Proliferation of Formal Organization

Foundational Ideas:  Ambiguity, Bounded Rationality, and the Garbage Can

Ansell, Christopher K.  2001.  “The Garbage Can Model of Behavior.”  In N. J. Smelser and Paul Bates (eds) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences.  Oxford:  Pergamon Press.

*Cohen, Michael D., James G. March, Johan P. Olsen.  1972.  A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice.  Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Mar., 1972), pp. 1-25

*Kahneman, Daniel.  “Maps of Bounded Rationality:  Psychology for Behavioral Economics.”

Foundational ideas:  The Problem of Organizational “Learning”

*Strang, David.  2010.  Learning By Example: Imitation and Innovation at a Global Bank.  Princeton, NY:  Princeton University Press.
— Introduction: “Setting the Scene:  Benchmarking a Bank.”
* — Chapter 1: “Benchmarking as a Management Technique.”
* — Chapter 5: “The Construction of a Reference Group.”
— Chapter 9: “Some Lessons from the Search for Best Practice.”

*Fischhoff, Baruch.  1982.  “For Those Condemned to Study the Past:  Heuristics and Biases in Hindsight.”  Pp. 335-354 (Chapter 23) in Kahneman, Daniel, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky (eds.).  1982.  Judgment Under Uncertainty:  Heuristics and Biases.  Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press.

*Daniel A. Levinthal and James G. March.  1993.  “The Myopia of Learning.”  Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, Special Issue: Organizations, Decision Making and Strategy.

*March, J. G. and J. P. Olsen.  1975. “The Uncertainty of the Past: Organizational Learning Under Ambiguity.” European Journal of Political Research, 3: 147-171.

*March, James G., Lee S. Sproull, and Michal Tamuz, “Learning from Samples of One or Fewer”, Organization Science, 2 (1991) 1-13.