Normative Awareness, Participatory and Gatekeeping Assignments of Organizational and Entrepreneurial Healthcare Journalists
Examining the Role of Entrepreneurial Healthcare Journalists in Organizational Contexts and Curriculum Change
by Mohamed Younus*,
- Published in Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education, E-ISSN: 2230-7540
Volume 1, Issue No. 2, Apr 2011, Pages 0 - 0 (0)
Published by: Ignited Minds Journals
ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper is todemonstrate and discuss the role of normative awareness, participatory and gatekeeping assignments of organizational and entrepreneurial healthcarejournalists.’ Entrepreneurial journalism’ is a new exemplar. This new paradigmalso forces academic world to reconsider traditional methods in how to preparestudents for a career. Journalists need not sacrifice core values ofindependence, truth-telling and impartiality if they choose to become businessowners. ‘Entrepreneurial journalism’ also fits within the historical context ofcurriculum change and discuss within academe over how to adapt to newtechnologies.
KEYWORD
normative awareness, participatory, gatekeeping assignments, organizational healthcare journalists, entrepreneurial healthcare journalists, entrepreneurial journalism, curriculum change, academic world, traditional methods, students preparation
INTRODUCTION:
Health journalists are dying from newsrooms more rapidly than other news specializations in part because of a prevailing belief among newsroom chieftains that health journalism is expendable and in part because health information is more readily available from a wider breadth of sources than ever before (Bristol & Donnelly, 2011). At a time when public interest in health issues remains high and health journalists as a whole have shown more willingness than other reporters to use certain social media in the journalism process, the work of freelance journalists has come to represent an important conduit of health information. If health journalists have the potential to create new forms of knowledge building and community construction by embracing social media and if a growing segment of those journalists are entrepreneurial, then the exploration of both is warranted. Health and health care need to be distinguished from each other for no better reason than that the former is often incorrectly seen as a direct function of the latter. Heath is clearly not the mere absence of disease. Good Health confers on a person or groups freedom from illness - and the ability to realize one's potential. Health is therefore best understood as the indispensable basis for defining a person's sense of well-being. The health of populations is a distinct key issue in public policy discourse in every mature society often determining the deployment of huge society. They include its cultural understanding of ill health and well-being, extent of socio-economic disparities, reach of health services and quality and costs of care and current bio-medical understanding about health and illness. Healthcare organizations can act as institutional entrepreneurs in a context of change. First, we present the institutional theory concepts on which our work. We analyze the process of institutional change advanced by a healthcare organization through the emergence, implementation and diffusion of an innovation in the organizational field. Based on this empirical case, we discuss how healthcare organizations can act as institutional entrepreneurs and become driving forces in de-institutionalizing and re-institutionalizing a field‟s practices. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings for research and practice. Institutional theory is one of the most prominent approaches used for understanding organizational phenomena (Battilana et al., 2009; Greenwood et al., 2008; Scott, 2000).Whereas early institutional studies were interested in actors‟ agency, later studies focused much of their attention on how environmental context influenced actors (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Tolbert and Zucker, 1983). Following DiMaggio‟s suggestion that institutional theory should reincorporate an “agency” concept, scholars have become increasingly interested in understanding how organizations also shape their environment. In seeking to understand better how innovative behaviours emerge, how individuals and organizations behave strategically, and how they influence change in institutionalized environments, scholars have developed the concept of institutional entrepreneurship (Beckert, 1999; Oliver, 1991). Institutional entrepreneurs, whether organizations or individuals, are described as actors who put forward ideas that diverge from dominant models (Battilana et al., 2009) and thereby introduce change in established routine practices.
Institutional theory –
How organizations in turn influence their environment? This concept, known as the “paradox of embedded agency” (Seo and Creed, 2002), reflects the tensions that exist between institutional determinism and agency with respect to specific action (Battilana et al., 2009; Greenwood and Suddaby,2006). this paradox combines the key characteristics of neo- institutionalism (environmental pressures) and earlier work on agency (Haveman and David, 2008). Thus, a central challenge for institutional theory is to show how and why entrenched actors develop into motivated and able to picture new practices and then get others to adopt them (Greenwood and Suddaby, 2006). In this section, we for a short time describe the environmental pressures that influence managerial behaviour. Then we present the concept of institutional entrepreneurs. Finally, we introduce a conceptual model that can help in understanding the process of institutional change, by seeking to bridge what have come to be termed “old” and “new” institutionalisms in organizational analysis.
INNOVATING ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN HEALTH CARE
This paper focuses on the journalist‟s role in innovating health care. There are two types of innovations: entrepreneurial innovations and institutional innovations. The difference between these is: entrepreneurial innovations and institutional innovations, the Entrepreneurial innovations – The aim of entrepreneurial innovations is to find new ways to enlarge market-share, size, and competitive position of organizations. Institutional innovations -The aims of institutional innovations is to find new ways to connect „old‟ and „new‟ logics in health care in order to make a long-standing contribution to a new
type of health care system.
CONCLUSION:
The paper reports on the extent to which entrepreneurial healthcare organizations can be a driving force in the creation of a new practice. The analysis is the development of a centre by a healthcare organization acting as an institutional entrepreneur that illustrates the conceptualization of an innovation and the mobilization of resources to implement it and to influence other actors in the field. The three stages of change are: emergence, implementation and diffusion.
REFERENCES:
Battilana, J., Leca, B. and Boxenbaum, E. (2009), “How actors change institutions:
towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 3 No. 1,pp. 65-107.
Greenwood, R., Oliver, O., Suddaby, R. and Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Eds) (2008), The
Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA.
Scott, W.R. (2000), Institutional Change and Healthcare Organizations: From
Professional Dominance to Managed Care, University of Chicago Press, and Chicago,
IL.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional
isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, pp. 147-160.
Tolbert, P.S. and Zucker, L.G. (1983), “Institutional sources of change in the formal
structure of organizations: the diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 22-39.
Beckert, J. (1999), “Agency, entrepreneurs, and institutional change. The role of
strategic choice and institutionalized practices in organizations”, Organization Studies, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 777-799.
Oliver, C. (1991), “Strategic responses to institutional processes”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 145-179.
Battilana, J., Leca, B. and Boxenbaum, E. (2009), “How actors change institutions:
towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 65-107.
Seo, M. and Creed, W.E.D. (2002), “Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional
change:a dialectical perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp.
222-247.
Battilana, J., Leca, B. and Boxenbaum, E. (2009), “How actors change institutions:
towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 3 No. 1,pp. 65-107. Greenwood, R. and Suddaby, R. (2006), “Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: the big five accounting firms”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 27-
48.
Haveman, H.A. and David, R.J. (2008), “Ecologist and institutionalist: friends or foes?”
in Greenwood, R., Oliver, O., Suddaby, R. and Sahlin-Andersson, K. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA,pp.
573-595.
Greenwood, R. and Suddaby, R. (2006), “Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields:
the bigfive accounting firms”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 27
48.
Mylaine Breton, Lise Lamothe, Jean-Louis Denis()”How healthcare organisations can
act as institutional entrepreneurs in a context of change” Journal of Health Organization and Management Vol. 28 No. 1, 2014
