только нужно не столько контекста больше, сколько текста:
Вот:
What Are Institutions, Anyway?
So just what are institutions, anyway? Economist Geoffrey M. Hodgson has argued that institutions are "the kinds of structures that matter most in the social realm: they make up the stuff of social life." Institutions, Hodgson writes, can be defined as "systems of established and prevalent social rules that structure social interactions." Sociologist Jonathan Turner offers a somewhat more wordy analy- sis; institutions, he argues, are "a complex of positions, roles, norms and values lodged in particular types of social structures and organizing relatively stable pat- terns of human activity."Without a doubt, some complicated stuff. But what matters for our purposes here is the embedded argument that institutions need to be understood as some- thing that can, at least in theory, be located outside of a particular physical structure. Office buildings and even payroll invoices don't serve as the bedrock of institutional material; rather, institutions are fundamentally a series of social rules that create stable patterns of behavior. Of course, working together every day in a newsroom or getting paid to perform a certain kind of work doesn't hurt the establishment and reinforcement of these social rules, but money and physical proximity aren't always the essential thing. It would also be a mistake to think about institutions as simple agglomerations of rational individuals, each making a calculated choice that entering into insti- tutional arrangements is the best way to maximize his or her self-interest. In the words of Walter Powell and Paul DiMaggio, two leading sociologists,"while institutions are certainly the result of human activity, they are not necessarily the products of conscious design the new institutionalism in organization theory and sociology comprises a rejection of rational-actor models, a turn toward cog- nitive and cultural explanations, and an interest in properties of supra-individual units of analysis that cannot be reduced to aggregations or direct consequences of individual motives." In other words, while understanding individuals is an impor- tant part of understanding institutions, there is an accumulated detritus within institutions that makes them irreducible to individual behavior. All of this boils down to third argument, one that we think can shed some light on the crisis plaguing journalism today.We quoted a scholar above who noted that institutions organize "relatively stable patterns of human activity." Stability has its advantages, and we'll discuss some of them below, but, as Powell and DiMaggio put it, "behaviors and structures that are institutionalized are ordinarily slower to change than those that are not institutional arrangements are reproduced because individuals often cannot even conceive of appropriate alternatives."
|