Common use of Organization of the Dissertation Clause in Contracts

Organization of the Dissertation. The remainder of this dissertation proceeds as follows. Chapter 2 provides the theoretical basis by which I approach mental health trainees’ clinical judgments and training. In particular, I draw from and combine several theoretical frameworks from organizational sociology: decision-making theory, neoinstitutional theory, and insights from the sociology of professions. Briefly, the theoretical traditions fit together in the following way. March and Simon’s (1958) decision-making theory provides the concept of the boundedly-rational actor, an actor constrained by limited information and a particular vantage point, often without clear preferences or objective means to compare choices. The boundedly-rational actor consequently makes good-enough decisions (satisfices) rather than best decisions (maximizes). Neoinstitutionalism introduces the concept of institutional logics (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1991), or cognitive maps that guide the activities and beliefs of individuals within particular organizational fields such as the field of mental health care. Institutional logics constrain how actors perceive the world. As such they provide an explanation for why boundedly-rational actors operating within the same organizational field make similar decisions. Neoinstitutional theory holds that members of the same profession are influenced by the same logic via a process called normative isomorphism (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1991). Not all organizational fields, however, contain a single, overarching logic (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2007). What of an organizational field that contains multiple, competing logics, and multiple, competing professions? How do actors within such variegated fields choose between logics? ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ (1988) work on the sociology of professions offers one potential answer. In an organizational arena characterized by multiple potential logics and different professions fighting over jurisdictions, professionals from a particular discipline share a logic. Each professional logic within any given organizational field contains elements that directly conflict with the logics shared by professionals from competing professions, as well as elements that are widely shared by all professions. I additionally draw from the professional socialization literature which emphasizes that as trainees move toward gaining professional credentials via university training professionals-in-training learn not only how to do the work of the profession but also to think like members of their profession. This literature helps to explain how professionals from the same occupation come to share a logic. That is, it unpacks part of the process of normative isomorphism – homogeneity based on professional affiliation – that neoinstitutionalists emphasize.

Organization of the Dissertation. The remainder of this dissertation proceeds as follows. Chapter 2 provides the theoretical basis by which I approach mental health trainees’ clinical judgments and training. In particular, I draw from and combine several theoretical frameworks from organizational sociology: decision-making theory, neoinstitutional theory, and insights from the sociology of professions. Briefly, the theoretical traditions fit together in the following way. March and Simon’s ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ (1958) decision-making theory provides the concept of the boundedly-rational actor, an actor constrained by limited information and a particular vantage point, often without clear preferences or objective means to compare choices. The boundedly-rational actor consequently makes good-enough decisions (satisfices) rather than best decisions (maximizes). Neoinstitutionalism introduces the concept of institutional logics (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1991), or cognitive maps that guide the activities and beliefs of individuals within particular organizational fields such as the field of mental health care. Institutional logics constrain how actors perceive the world. As such they provide an explanation for why boundedly-rational actors operating within the same organizational field make similar decisions. Neoinstitutional theory holds that members of the same profession are influenced by the same logic via a process called normative isomorphism (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1991). Not all organizational fields, however, contain a single, overarching logic (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2007). What of an organizational field that contains multiple, competing logics, and multiple, competing professions? How do actors within such variegated fields choose between logics? ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ (1988) work on the sociology of professions offers one potential answer. In an organizational arena characterized by multiple potential logics and different professions fighting over jurisdictions, professionals from a particular discipline share a logic. Each professional logic within any given organizational field contains elements that directly conflict with the logics shared by professionals from competing professions, as well as elements that are widely shared by all professions. I additionally draw from the professional socialization literature which emphasizes that as trainees move toward gaining professional credentials via university training professionals-in-training learn not only how to do the work of the profession but also to think like members of their profession. This literature helps to explain how professionals from the same occupation come to share a logic. That is, it unpacks part of the process of normative isomorphism – homogeneity based on professional affiliation – that neoinstitutionalists emphasize.