Stan Karanasios

This paper examines what happens when multiple organisations with competing logics enact social media concurrently and in diverse ways. This is important in organisational fields such as emergency management where it becomes problematic if information provision is fragmented and inconsistent. A qualitative and multi‐level case study of an organisational field is undertaken, comprised of interviews with 45 representatives from 27 organisations, including emergency management organisations, government agencies, non‐government organisations, private organisations, and community groups. Based on our findings, we build understanding of how logics and the enactment of digital technology coevolve in an organisational field. We articulate a theoretical model that explains the reciprocity between logics and the enactment of social media. We also develop a framework that captures an organisational field‐level perspective on the range of ways that information flows across such a field. We contribute to theory on institutional dynamics and to understanding of the enactment of social media in organisational fields. Implications for practice are discussed.

Regulating how digital platforms use algorithms to determine and control content displayed to their users is both a controversial topic and an important societal challenge. Existing research acknowledges institutional tussles around regulating how digital platforms use algorithms to determine and control content. However, we lack research showing how the development of regulation unfolds. We build on data from a longitudinal discourse analysis of 410 media articles and 483 policy and industry documents to study two cases of algorithmic control regulation in Australia. The first involves algorithmic control for content display, the second for content moderation. We develop a process model of institutional work towards regulation of algorithmic control. It captures the institutional tussles between governments, digital platforms and third parties as each expresses their perspective on legitimate forms of algorithmic control and shapes the process and outcome of regulation. Building on our model, we discuss the dynamics of regulation development in light of the constellation of actors and their power position in the process. We further consider the regulatory outcome and highlight future research questions that build on our findings.