Similarity or Diversity Between Fields? The Case of Charity Markets in Türkiye

Abstract

Neo-Institutional Theory assumes that there is homogeneity within and heterogeneity between organizational fields. However, institutional scholars prioritize in-field comparisons more than they do across organizational fields. Moreover, these comparisons have been made between exchange fields, or between exchange fields and issue fields. In this study, we compared charity markets described as interstitial issue fields based on 13 institutional infrastructure elements embedded within them, derived from the relevant theory and prior research findings. We conducted 44 in-depth interviews with experienced charity market organizers from 10 nonprofit organizations. Furthermore, four days of participant observation were conducted with field notes in each market lasted between 7-10 days. Data were analyzed with a directed content analysis technique adopting a deductive approach. Contrary to the basic premise of the Neo-Institutional Theory, we concluded that organizational fields could be isomorphic, just like organizations. This result is expected to present a new perspective on the theory’s basic assumptions.

Keywords

• neo-institutional theory
• organizational field
• issue field
• interstitial issue field
• charity markets