Corporate Agency And Co-reflexivity In Institutional Work

Author(s):

Peter Kahn(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

32. Organizational Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

32 SES 01, Organizational Learning and Organization as a Category of Learning

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-08

13:15-14:45

Room:

3004. [Main]

Chair:

Michael Göhlich

Contribution

There has been growing interest in recent years in the notion of institutional work. Lawrence and Sudaby (2006, 215) characterise this as “the purposive action of individuals and organizations aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions”. They suggest that this approach has helped to reorient organisational theory towards a greater appreciation of ways in which intentional action influences organisations. This approach, nonetheless, still allows for a focus on ways in which organisational culture and social structures nonetheless influence agents. The attention on human intentional action, furthermore, opens up particular scope for learning amongst the individuals involved.

Alongside this, a significant body of theory has been developed in recent years within the field of critical realism. Research by Archer (2003) and Donati (2011), for instance, specifically considers the role played by reflexivity in relation to human intentional action.

Archer (2003) identifies one key generative mechanism underpinning intentional human action. She highlights how the agency of individuals becomes increasingly concrete as concerns lead to action; under the influence of reflexive deliberation and within given structural settings that constrain and influence that action. Reflexive deliberation here is taken to mean the ordinary mental capacity to consider oneself in relation to social contexts.

Such research has further considered associations between reflexivity and social relations. Donati (2011) refers to ‘we-reflexivity’ as the means by which agents employ (internal) reflexivity in order to guide their (external) relations with others. Donati (2011) specifically highlights reciprocity in social relations as a central feature of what humanises these relations. However, the focus on joint action is not to the fore in this description of we-reflexivity. Archer (2003) uses the term corporate agency to refer to the agreement and pursuit of shared goals, highlighting also the organisation that accompanies such joint action. Corporate agency, moreover, can be regarded as an important dimension to institutional work.

Kahn (2014) uses the term ‘co-reflexivity’ to refer to reflexivity that accompanies corporate agency, pointing out the relevance of such reflexivity to learning. Archer (2013), meanwhile, suggests that social theorists have barely begun to address ways in which collective reflexivity shapes and influences our interpersonal relations. In the context of family relations, Donati (2013) highlights different forms of we-reflexivity, including the we-reflexivity-close-to-zero; and the relational we-reflexivity that focuses on the relation, and not just on the Self in the social setting. However, while Archer (2013) and Donati (2011) both consider how reflexivity underpins social relations and relational goods more generally, the specific connection between reflexivity and corporate agency warrants further treatment. .

In this study we look to explore the scope for co-reflexivity to influence corporate agency in different ways. There is scope also to consider the learning that accompanies the exercise of co-reflexivity, given the potential that Kahn (2014) identifies for it to support agents as they undertake joint action in contexts characterised by uncertainty as to the way forward. We thus address the following research question in this paper: ‘What different expressions of co-reflexivity are possible in support of corporate agency as it unfolds in relation to institutional work?’ In answering this question, there is potential also to consider how co-reflexivity influences the learning that emerges in organisational settings.

Method

We address these above research questions through a theoretical argument that is grounded in critical realism (Bhaskar, 1986). Critical realism is a paradigm that represents a major current in the social sciences within Europe and beyond. This paradigm highlights the roles played by underlying structures and generative mechanisms in society. It argues that these structures and mechanisms may be regarded as entities in their own right, in this way constituting social reality. As such, critical realism offers the basis for non-reductive critique that explains why the events that we experience actually occur, with attention also devoted to ways in which social reality is stratified. Critical realism further understands emancipation as referring to social reality in so far as it is determined by the desires of the agents involved themselves. It is interesting that the corporate dimension to emancipation remains under-developed within its immediate framing by Bhaskar (1986). Understood in these terms, there is scope for a critical realist reading of corporate agency to assist in emancipatory transitions within organisations. We employ this paradigm both in developing the structure of our argument, and in drawing on (and looking to extend) theoretical resources developed by such researchers as Archer and Donati working from within this tradition. While the use of these theoretical resources is apparent within this paper as a whole, it is helpful to lay out the overall critical realist dimensions to our argument. We explore a generative mechanism by which various forms of co-reflexivity underpin the exercise of corporate agency in relation to institutional work, and affect its outcomes. One of the main lessons from Archer’s research on the reflexivity of individuals is that there is significant scope for variation in the way that reflexivity unfolds from one individual to the next, and that this influences how agency unfolds. It is reasonable to consider the possibility that a similar process operates in relation to corporate agency. One might expect to see reflexive deliberation support that agency by which individuals reach agreement on joint concerns, and then pursue joint courses of action; perhaps, though, allowing greater scope for social practices to influence the process. Such an approach aligns with the stratified basis for corporate agency that we have effectively identified. Learning then represents an integral feature of this discussion, something that is integral to the challenges and uncertainty that characterise institutional work.

Expected Outcomes

We lay out our initial theoretical analysis of a range of ways to characterise co-reflexivity. Kahn (2014) argues that extended forms of reflexivity are a key feature of learning. The extended dimension to co-reflexivity is thus important to consider, partly in relation to the range of modes of reflexivity that may need to be employed when seeking joint action in the face of complexity that, for instance, crosses the need for efficient processes, social relations and human values; as one might typically encounter in institutional work. Co-reflexivity may also extended in ways that do not contribute to purposeful joint action. Where reflexivity is marked by a lack of purposeful action, for individuals, Archer employs the term ‘fractured reflexivity’. Kahn (2015) suggests that there is scope for co-reflexivity to fracture in relation to joint learning. If social practices promote frustrations in collective work, then a fractured response can be magnified through the additional deliberation on these frustrations. Or again, where reflexivity is focused on subversive ends, a feature that Archer (2003) identifies as characteristic of what she terms meta-reflexivity, then joint action will be challenging. Finally, there are restricted forms of co-reflexivity, where those involved are effectively discouraged from deliberating upon joint action. This may occur where organisational practices reduce the scope for social relations, isolating individuals from each other. This is possible, certainly, through mediatization, but also through relations that involve domination. Donati (2011) earlier highlighted how relational reflexivity depends upon reciprocal social relations. Flann (2010) argues that where an individual is subject to domination by others, then reflexivity can be suppressed. These perspectives align with Archer’s identification of what she terms ‘near non-reflexivity’ (2012) in relation to the internal deliberation of individuals.

References

Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. S. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. S. (2013). Collective reflexivity: A relational case for it. In C. Powell and F. Dépelteau (eds), ‬‬Conceptualizing Relational Sociology: Ontological and Theoretical Issues, 145-61. Houndmills: Palgrave.‬‬ Bhaskar, R. (1986). Scientific realism and human emancipation. London: Verso. Donati, P. (2011). Relational sociology: a new paradigm for the social sciences. London: Routledge. Donati, P. (2013). Cultural change, family transitions and reflexivity in a morphogenetic society. Memorandum, 21, 39-55. Flann, H. (2010). Emotion, and the silenced and short-circuited self. In M. S. Archer (ed), Conversations about reflexivity (187–205). London: Routledge. Kahn P. E. (2014). Theorising student engagement in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 1005-1018. Kahn, P. E., Everington, L., Reid, I., Kelm, K. and Watkins, F. (2015). Understanding student engagement in online learning environments: the role of reflexivity, Submitted to Educational Technology Research and Development. Lawrence, T. and Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence & W. R. Nord (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies, 2nd edn., 215–254. London: Sage.

Author Information

Peter Kahn (presenting / submitting)

University of Liverpool

Centre for Lifelong Learning

Liverpool

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.