本研究探讨了边缘参与中的制度演化过程。改革开放的历史、当前中国经济的市场化转型、创新创业热潮和新兴产业的发展，都显示了“边缘参与者”的重要作用，它们是推动制度演化的重要力量。在理论层面，制度演化是一个复杂的过程，但也是经济学、政治学和社会学关注的一个核心话题，且分别发展出了具有不同理论侧重点的制度演化理论，其中包括经济学家诺斯的制度演化理论，政治学中的新制度主义对规则演化的分析和历史制度主义提出的渐进式制度演化模型，社会学家韦伯、马克思、帕森斯、吉登斯、布迪厄等人关于制度演化的研究等等。但是这些制度演化分析的一个不足之处在于未能充分考虑组织这一特定的形式在制度演化中的作用。 当传统制度理论与组织研究合流后，形成了组织社会学新制度理论学派。本研究利用文献计量分析软件CitcSpacc，对组织与管理研究领域12本顶级英文期刊上发表的关于制度演化研究文献进行了系统分析，以识别基于组织社会学新制度理论的现代制度演化研究呈现出的模式、发展路径和趋势。文献“共被引”分析的结果显示，现代制度演化分析可以分为六大聚类，分别对应不同的时间段，每个时间段的制度演化研究都有不同的理论侧重点。 组织社会学新制度理论在上世纪七十年代末八十年代初萌芽阶段时，对制度演化关注不足，这一时期的研究主要关心制度的维持和扩散，以及由此产生的组织同构、趋同问题。八十年代末时，有学者将利益和能动性引入到了制度分析中，引发了后来一系列关于制度变革和演化的早期研究。直至新世纪，制度演化研究繁荣发展，产生了制度创业、制度工作和社会运动等研究子领域，它们多从组织场域层面切入，考察制度的生成、演化过程。其中一个新的更加细分的研究领域是探究行动者在场域内的位置与制度演化的关系，但是现有研究还不充分，而且得出的结论也并不一致。现有研究的不足之处至少体现在三个方面：第一，对边缘参与者的初始条件关注不足；第二，对动态性关注不足，尤其是对参与者的位置动态性关注不足；第三，对或政府的作用分析不 够充分。为了弥补现有研究的不足，理解现实中观察到的有趣现象，本研究设计了一个质性案例研究，尝试深入探讨边缘参与中的制度演化过程。 “边缘参与”是本文使用的一个核心概念，它内含“结构和能动性”的整合，直接与制度的约束和使能作用相联系。制度逻辑视角为研究制度变革提供了一个非常有价值的框架，但目前仍然处于发展早期，面临的挑战包括，如何勾勒不同制度逻辑在不同分析层次的跨层影响、交互和生成机制，以及过分强调将“竞争性的制度逻辑”作为制度变革的前因或条件，而忽视了将其作为制度变革结果的研究。制度创业理论关注制度创业者如何创建新制度或变革现有制度。制度创业的本质也是一个合法化的过程，但目前的研究对制度演化的“暂时性”、复杂性和动态性依然关注不足，对组织种群层面的集体行动如何与制度创业者的“英雄式”行动形成合力推动制度演化也研究甚少。演化视角为分析组织与制度的共同演化提供了一个有效的分析框架，契合本研究的主题。 在第四章中，本文首先介绍了社会科学研究的三种范式和进行规范科学研究的三种科学推理逻辑。三种范式是实证主义、诠释／解释主义、批判理论，三种科学推理逻辑是归纳逻辑、演绎逻辑和溯因逻辑。本研究采用了一种“实用的”态度，使用研究问题和理论建构的要求指导研究方法论的选择，并不固守某一特定的研究范式。质性案例研究相比较其他研究方法，尤其适合回答“如何”和“为什么”的问题，对探究极端现象背后的解释、建构理论具有独特优势。本研究还是一个过程研究。与方差思维关注现象中各个变量之间的关系不同，过程思维试图研究现象从A到B是如何发生的，关注变化中的事件、活动和选择，将“生成”和流变置于首位。使用过程思维可以更好地理解复杂想象背后的发展逻辑和机制模式。本研究同时也是一个历史研究，强调“过去”对现在和未来的影响，不仅由于数据的“历史性”，更由于现象背后的历史情境的重要性。第四章的最后是对研究情境、数据来源和收集方法，以及数据分析方法与过程的详细介绍。本研究的情境是网约车在中国的发展带来的制度演化；数据来源主要是二手数据，也包括一手的补充访谈资料；数据分析方法主要参考了质性案例研究的数据分析传统和过程研究的数据分析策略。作为铺垫，本章还叙述了网约车在中国的发展简史。 从初始条件出发，经过制度创业和再结构化三个理论阶段，网约车在中国的发展过程是一个边缘参与下的“生成”过程。基于数据的分析和理论，本文提出了以下命题。命题1a：高度结构化、单一逻辑主导、存在制度矛盾的组织场域初始条件，约束和使能边缘参与者的行动。命题1b：边缘参与者基于其边缘位置、技术可获得性和创业身份，通过“问题化”场域层面的条件而开启制度创业过程。命题2：边缘参与者可采用资源运用、合法化和快速组织转变战略，自下而上地推动制度演化。命题3：边缘参与者的战略行动、新组织种群合法性和竞争的动态发展以及场域层面制度建构共同推动了制度创业的进程。命题4a：自上而下的制度供给影响场域内参与者的位置重组，有的边缘参与者可能会从边缘走到中心。命题4b：自上而下的制度供给影响场域内参与者对制度过程的战略响应，响应战略包括顺从、吸纳和选择性扩展。命题5：边缘参与中制度演化的暂时结果可能是制度混合，表现为规制混合、认知混合和组织混合。 为了更加全面的理解现象背后的发展逻辑和机制模式，本文在第六章首先基于研究发现建构了一个边缘参与中制度演化的跨层过程模型。模型指出，场域层面的特征和边缘参与者(组织)的特征共同构成了制度演化的初始条件，这些初始条件如胎记一般，具有约束和使能作用，时刻影响着后续的制度演化过程和边缘参与者的战略选择与成长发展；制度创业和再结构化的结果可能是。竞争且互补”的制度的混合，这符合中国传统“中庸”和“阴阳”观，以及基于整体论“共存共生”思想的悖论管理思想。第六章还将研究发现与制度演化文献进行了对话，并讨论了与本研究相关的理论话题，其中包括政府在制度演化中的作用、权力场域与制度演化中的资源、道德价值观与“上善制度”的建构等。 本研究对制度演化研究、制度逻辑研究和新兴经济体中的创新创业研究具有理论贡献。研究以“边缘参与”为首要切入点，探讨了制度在场域边缘行动者的参与下所表现出的演化过程，进一步推动了组织社会学新制度理论的发展，也为进一步解决“嵌入能动性悖论”及其衍生出的主体占据的场域位置(边缘/中心)与制度变革的关系问题提供了启示。基于制度创业、制度逻辑和演化视角，建构了一个边缘参与中制度演化的跨层过程模型，将自下而上的制度建构过程、自上而下的制度供给带来的约束和机会与组织、制度和战略等要素结合，发雇了现有创新创业与制度关系的研究。也刻画了一个成熟的组织场域因“新来者”们带来新的观念、逻辑和模式而发生的快速制度演化过程，同时也为研究受管制市场的制度变革和创新创业积累了经验研究。发展了目前关于制度逻辑混合的研究，指出了制度混合可能的类别，即规制混合、认知混合和组织混合。以网约车这一新兴事物在中国这一新兴市场中的发展为例，探讨了制度与组织创新创业活动的共同演化，丰富了关于新兴市场中制度与创新创业关系的研究。 本研究对实践也具有重要启示，包括对创新创业管理实践、政府政策制定以及跨国企业经营实践的启示。本研究在理论和方法论层面尚有不足之处，未来研究在弥补这些不足的基础上，可继续对边缘参与中的制度演化开展多情境、多方法、多数据、多视角、跨场域和跨层次的研究，为该领域的繁荣积累更多理论和经验研究。 关键词：边缘参与；制度创业；组织场域：制度逻辑；组织合法性 ①本研究受国家自然科学基金面上项目“中国企业创业中制度缺失与战略反应的研究”(71372157)和国家自然科学基金重点项目“中国转型经济背景下企业创业机会与资源开发行为研究”(71232011)资助完成。

 This research endeavors to explore how institutions change under peripheral participation. Peripheral actors play an important role in the 40-year reform and open history of China. The marketization process, the upsurge of entrepreneurship and innovation practices, and the development of emerging industries in present China also witness an increasing participation of them. They are often the driving forces of institutional change. Although it has been argued that institutional change is a complex process, many economists, political scientists and sociologists have been attracted by it and proposed different theories about institutional change, including Douglas North’s institutional change theory, research on the evolution of institutional rules by the neo-institutional theorists and the gradual institutional change model by historical institutionalism in political science, and instutional change studies by distinguished sociologists such as Max Weber, Karl Marx, Talcott Parsons, Anthony Giddens, and Pierre Bourdieu. One limitation of these studies is that they pay little attention to the role of organizations in the process of institutional change. When traditional institutional theory met organization studies, neoinstitutionalism of organizational sociology emerged and started the modern analysis of institutional change with greater emphasize on the relationship between organizations and institutions. To find patterns, paths and trends of modern instituonal change studies, we conduct a bibliometric analysis using CiteSpace with articles puplished on 12 top journals in the field of organization and management studies. The results of co-citation analyisis show 6 clusters. Each cluster resprents a common trend during a certain period of time. Early neo-institutionalists care more about the maintenance and diffusion of institutions than the change of them. Organizational conformity and isomorphism are the main topics. Intersts and agency haven’t been introduced into modern institutional analysis since late 1980s when the literature of institutional change started to grow. Institutional change theorists in the new century divide themselves into different sub-fields such as institutional entrepreneurship, institutional work, and social movements. They prefer to study institutional change at the level of organizational field. The relation between field position of actors and institutional change then becomes a new research topic. However, we now still know little about this topic due to conflicting research findings. There are at least three limitations in extant literature. The initial conditions of peripheral participation, the dynamics of field position, and the role of nation/state in the process of institutional change are not well studied. In order to fill these gaps and understand interesting phenomenon we obsearve in reality, we design this qualitative case study. “Peripheral participation” is the core concept in this study. It integrates “structure and agency” and relates directly to the constraining and enabling function of institutions. Institutional logics perspective is a valuable framework for studying institutional change, but is still in its infancy. Challenges of this perspective include describing the cross-level effects, interactions, and emerging mechanisms of different institutional logics, and the study of competing institutional logics as the outcome of institutional change rather than the antecedent. The essence of institutional entrepreneurship is legitimation. However, we find that the temporality, complexity, and dynamics of institutional change still haven’t got much attention in existing studies. Critics also point to the limiting research on institutional changes drived by the coordinating forces of heroic actions of institutional entrepreneurs and collective action at the organizational population level. Evolutionary perspective matches the theme of this research by offering us a framework to understand the co-evolution of organizations and institutions. Chapter 4 begins with a general introduction about three paradigms in social sciences and three scientific reasoning logics when doing normal science research. The paradigms are positivism, interpretivism/hermeneutics, and critical theory, and the logics are induction, deduction, and abduction. We adopt a pragmatic view when designing this research, not sticking to a particular paradidm and choosing the methodology according to the research question and the requirements of theory building. Compared to other methods, qualitative case study has advantages for answering “how” and “why” questions to explore the explaination of phenomenon and build theories. This research is also a process study. Process thinking, different from variance thinking trying to understand the relationship between variables, attemps to understand how phenomenon move from A to B, what are the critical events, activities and choices that make it happen. Process studies put becoming and flow at the first place when examining the logics and mechanisms behind phenomenon. To some extent, this research is also a historical study and cares about how the past influences the present and future. Not only historical data make this possible, but also the historical context. At the end of chapter 4, we introduce our research setting, data sources and collection methods, data analysis methods and processes. The institutional change initiated by peripheral actors advocating online car-hailing service in China is choosed as our research setting because of its theoretical extremity. Most of our data are secondary, with some interviews as complement. We analyse the data according to the analytical strategies and procedures of existing qualitative case study and process study research. To lay a foundation for the following sections, this chapter ends with a brief introduction of the history of car-hailing in China. The process of online car-hailing institutional change in China is a becoming process stating form some initial conditions and going through institutional entrepreneurship and restructuring. Based on the narration interspersed with comments of the emipircal evidence, we develop several theoretical propositions. Proposition 1a: The higly structured, single logic dominated organizational field with institutional contradictions constrain and enable participants’ entrepriaerial actions. Proposition 1b: Based on their peripheral position, technology accessibility, and entrepreneurial identy, peripeheral participants start institutional entrepreneurship by problematizing field level conditions. Proposition 2: to change institutions from bottom, peripheral participants may use three strategies which are resource mobilization, legitimation, and rapid organizational transformation. Proposition 3: the process of institutional entprepreneruship is drived by the strategic actions of peripheral participants, the dynamics of legitimacy and competition at the organizationl population level, and social construction at the organizational field level. Proposition 4a: the top-down institutional supply influences the position reconfiguration of peripheral participants with some pepripehral actors come to the center. Proposition 4b: the top-down institutional supply influences the strategic responses to the institutional processes of the actors in the organizational field, which include conformity, co-opt and selective expansion. Proposition 5: the temporal outcome of institutional change under peripheral participation may be institutional hybridization, which contains regulative, cognitive, and organizational hybridization. To fully understand the logics and mechanism of the phenomenon, we develop a cross-level process model of institutional change under peripheral participation. We maintain that ield level characteristics and fetures of peripheral actors as the initial conditions largely affect the outcome and trajectory of institutional change, and the temporal outcome of institutional entrepreneurship and restructuring may be the hybridization of two competing-yet-complementary institutions(or institutional logics). This can be understood with the ideas from traditional Chinese philosophy like “Zhong-Yong” and “Ying-Yang” as well as the latest paradox management literature based on the holistic view about “coexistence and symbiosis”. In Chapter 6, we also make a dialogue between our research findings and existing literateure about institutional change, and further the discussion on some relative topics such as the role of nation/state in the process of institutional change, power field and capital in institutional change, moral values and the construction of good institutions, etc. This research makes several contributions to literature on institutional change, institutional logics, and entrepreneurship and innovation in emerging economies. Firstly, by introducing the concept “peripheral participation” into extant institutional change literature, we contribute to neo-institutionalism in organizational sociology by providing insights on the traditional “paradox of embedded agency” and the relationship between actors’ field position(core/periphery) and institutional change. Secondly, based on institutional entrepreneurship theory, institutional logics perspective and evolutionary theory, we develop a cross-level process model of institutional change under peripheral participation, integrating bottom-up institutional construction and top-down institutional supply which provides field actors and potential newcomers with institutional pressures and opportunities that affect actor’s postion reconfiguration and strategic responses. Thirdly, we describe in detail the rapid institutional change process due to the new ideas, logics, forms brought by the newcomers of a mature organizational field, and provide empirical evidences of the institutional dynamics and entrepreneurship in a regulated market. Fourthly, we further the study of institutional logics hybridization by showing that the hybridization of institutions or institutional logics may have three representations, i.e. regulative, cognitive, and organizational hybridization. Fifthly, we enrich the research on entrepreneurship and innovation in emerging economies with the investigation of the development of online car-hailing in China and the co-evolution of institutions and entrepreneurial activities. This research also has notable implications for practioners, especially for the management of entrepreneurship and innovation, government policy making, and international business operation in China. Same as other studies, some limitations regarding to theory and methodology apply to our research. Future studies can conduct more research on institutional change under peripheral participation in different contexts, using multiple data, methods and theoretical perspectives and examining cross-field and cross-level phenomenon, so that this research field can be prosperous with the accumulation of theoretical and empirical studies. Keywords: peripheral participation; institutional entrepreneurship; organizational field; institutional logics; organizational legitimacy