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. 

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.