The Dynamics of VALUE in the Adoption of NOVEL Practices: A Study of OPEN Access Self-Archiving in Academic Institutions

Research has generated rich insights into how and why organizations adopt or reject novel practices that they consider to be valuable. However, there is an implicit assumption that the value of novel practices is transparent to adopters before and during adoption (Kennedy & Fiss, 2009; Rogers, 2003; Wejnert, 2002). Although novel practices may generate value to organisations, organisations may be reluctant to adopt them because their value remains unclear and unproven. For instance, while CSR may bring expected benefits including higher labour productivity and enhanced reputation (Stuebs & Sun, 2010), adopters may be sceptical as the relationship between financial performance and CSR remains unclear (e.g., Margolis, Elfenbein, & Walsh, 2007). Moreover, many novel practices have yet to gain cognitive legitimacy or regulatory mandate (Suchman, 1995) (e.g., disclosure of carbon footprints), organisations may doubt their value or even resist adoption. For instance, adopters may be uncertain about the value of various sustainability initiatives challenging taken-for-granted profit maximization practices (Lamberti & Lettieri, 2009).

     Since novel practices tend to challenge institutionalised practices (Hoefer & Green, 2016) and may affect the power balance within organisations (Ferlie et al., 2005), practice sponsors may need to promote and justify their adoption (Green, 2004). While scholars have documented the role of rhetoric (Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005), and organisational features (Wejnert, 2002) in the adoption of practices, less research has examined how practice sponsors shape and justify the value of novel practices that may be potentially disruptive to adopters. As value may be differentially perceived by different constituents, practice sponsors may use different rationalities to justify value as theorized in Boltanski and Thévenot’s (2006) economies of worth (EW) framework and increase legitimacy (Patriotta, Gond, & Schultz, 2011). How might these justification efforts clarify the value of novel practices for adopters during the adoption process?

We address these issues by examining how practice sponsors shaped and justified the value of Open Access self-archiving at two leading British universities over the last decade.  We find that practice sponsors justified self-archiving by drawing upon different rationalities at the field level to promote the practice at the organisational level. When facing the challenge of low perceived value, practice sponsors re-oriented the practice to match individual and organisational goals and strategically unveiled its new value at critical moments to secure official endorsement. We derive a model of the evolving value of a novel practice in the adoption process that comprises three core mechanisms – justifying the initial value, reshaping the value and unveiling the new value.

     We offer three contributions. First, we contribute to diffusion research by explaining how value of practices may not be innate but continually evolve during the adoption process. Second, we show how practice sponsors shape and justify the value of novel practices. Third, we show how organisational and field level contexts both enable and constrain the practice sponsors’ efforts to justify the value of novel practices based on different rationalities.

(References available on request)