Institutional Logics Versus Norm Circles: Alternative or Complementary Approaches to the Analysis of Institutions?

ABSTRACT The institutional logics and norm circle perspectives have emerged as two approaches to the analysis of institutions in organisations and society. This paper compares the two perspectives and asks whether they should be seen as alternative or complementary approaches. Although the two approaches rest on a shared ontological conception of institutions as objectified, or taken‐for‐granted, phenomena that are imbued with a strong sense of normativity, their diverging epistemological commitments and analytical emphases speak in favour of treating them as relatively distinct alternatives. This is especially the case insofar as the ‘mainstream’ approach, that has dominated research on institutional logics, is concerned. However, I also draw attention to how insights from the institutional logics and norm circle perspectives can be selectively combined and complement each other within a research approach that builds on a shared, critical realist understanding of institutions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour
Published
2026-03-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.70037
Primary Topic
Critical Realism in Sociology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Institutional Logics Versus Norm Circles: Alternative or Complementary Approaches to the Analysis of Institutions?

Sven Modell
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour
Critical Realism in Sociology
article

Institutional Logics Versus Norm Circles: Alternative or Complementary Approaches to the Analysis of Institutions?

Sven Modell
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT The institutional logics and norm circle perspectives have emerged as two approaches to the analysis of institutions in organisations and society. This paper compares the two perspectives and asks whether they should be seen as alternative or complementary approaches. Although the two approaches rest on a shared ontological conception of institutions as objectified, or taken‐for‐granted, phenomena that are imbued with a strong sense of normativity, their diverging epistemological commitments and analytical emphases speak in favour of treating them as relatively distinct alternatives. This is especially the case insofar as the ‘mainstream’ approach, that has dominated research on institutional logics, is concerned. However, I also draw attention to how insights from the institutional logics and norm circle perspectives can be selectively combined and complement each other within a research approach that builds on a shared, critical realist understanding of institutions.

Journal for the Theory of Social BehaviourVol. 56(2)
University of Manchester (GB), Norwegian School of Economics (NO)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Critical Realism in Sociology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.