Hi everyone--great topic!
This is in response to Jay and Mike on institutional resistance to
change--
While it may seem like on the surface, and in organization members'
accounts of how things are (and will be forever...) a certain way, and in
their partterns of behavior, that there is deep structural resistance to
change, it seems that one of the really interesting uses of activity
theorising (and one of the reasons I started the topic of comparing
feminist theorizing with activity theorizing) is to show that change is
pulling apart structure and mythologies of permanence all the time. When
you talk to people in organizations that have lost their histories just
over the horizon of memory, (like a study Engestrom et al did of a Urology
research clinic in the 1980's) have the truth, the law, the rules, buried
in some wherehouse that no one has the key to but assumes is still in
force; when you see that people keep doing the old stuff in an era that
cannot support their demands on the environment and on employees, or the
needs of patients or clients, when you ask someone whay they use this
procedure and they give a reason that goes only about a layer deep, and
you see them realize that they don't know what they are doing or where the
rationale comes from...when tools radically mismmatch the job at hand,
etc. these are the sources of change and disruption that point to
questions about intractability. Institutions may be shown to resist
change as they age, but is doesn't mean they are successful even when they
appear to be standing still. Stability and change take turns being
illusory, depending on the angle (angel?--apoligies to Klee ) of view.
I am thinking of any number of the early case studies of Engestrom et al
here, but also when I think of Mike's or Olga or Honorine's interactions
with research sites, the enduring forms of stability in the community
setting, roles, offices, resource provision, accoutability, seem to be
those which are like buildings in earthquake zones on rollers, which
allow the organization to remain standing while tremendous force for
change is absorbed by the buried truth of their constant movement.
When we look back and see historical patterns of the same kinds of
flakiness, resistance, conflicting demands, absence of staff back-up,
ambivanlece toward educational activity, or the heroic efforts, rising to
the occasion or fast fixes that pull of a great party for the kids, are
these really "the same" ?
I really don't have an answer, just want to stimulate more conversaton on
the topic. Tremendously interesting!!
Katherine Brown
waterlogged in Suisun City
Mike Cole wrote:
> Jay asks:
> Is it true that institutions have developmental
> trajectories, growing more resistant to structural change as they age?
> seems to be so, and may raise some interesting questions about how to
> conceptualize both institutions and development.
>
> AN answer? YES! and also YES. The trick is to do it, in detail, at
> several levels of aggregation over time!
> mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:07 PST