Institutional Logics and Digital Collective Action at Amnesty International - the Decoder Initiative

As social movement organizations (SMOs) enter the platform economy to transform their processes and scale their impact, they have to reckon their traditional logic with the emerging logic of the platform organization. In this paper we examine the Decoder initiative at Amnesty International. The Decoder initiative introduced the global SMO into the uncharted territory of online microtasking of political activism. The platform allowed rapid scaling of repetitive unstructured data tasks to generate large quantities of standardized data, leveraging the work of thousands previously unaffiliated digital supporters around the world. While partially contrasting, we trace and examine the coexistence of the SMO and digital platform logics. We conclude with implications for theory and practice.

[1]  Mark de Reuver,et al.  The digital platform: a research agenda , 2018, J. Inf. Technol..

[2]  Jan vom Brocke,et al.  How Big Data Analytics Enables Service Innovation: Materiality, Affordance, and the Individualization of Service , 2018, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[3]  Hani Safadi,et al.  Social Media Affordances for Connective Action: An Examination of Microblogging Use During the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill , 2017, MIS Q..

[4]  Marleen Huysman,et al.  Debating big data: A literature review on realizing value from big data , 2017, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[5]  S. Brusoni,et al.  Institutional complexity in turbulent times: formalization, collaboration, and the emergence of blended logics , 2017 .

[6]  W. Powell A sociologist looks at crowds: Innovation or invention? , 2017 .

[7]  Anandasivam Gopal,et al.  Logic Pluralism in Mobile Platform Ecosystems: A Study of Indie App Developers on the iOS App Store , 2017, Inf. Syst. Res..

[8]  Sue Newell,et al.  Growing on Steroids: Rapidly Scaling the User Base of Digital Ventures Through Digital Innovation , 2017, MIS Q..

[9]  Varun Grover,et al.  Management Misinformation Systems: A Time to Revisit? , 2017, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Andrew Chadwick,et al.  Social Media, Professional Media and Mobilisation in Contemporary Britain: Explaining the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Citizens’ Movement 38 Degrees , 2017 .

[11]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing Innovation Management Research in a Digital World , 2017, MIS Q..

[12]  Elena Karahanna,et al.  Protesting Corruption on Twitter: Is It a Bot or Is It a Person? , 2016 .

[13]  Emre Yetgin,et al.  Are Social Media Emancipatory or Hegemonic? Societal Effects of Mass Media Digitization in the Case of the SOPA Discourse , 2016, MIS Q..

[14]  Zizi Papacharissi Affective publics and structures of storytelling: sentiment, events and mediality , 2016 .

[15]  Lisen Selander,et al.  Digital Action Repertoires and Transforming a Social Movement Organization , 2016, MIS Q..

[16]  A. Kavada Creating the collective: social media, the Occupy Movement and its constitution as a collective actor , 2015, Protest Technologies and Media Revolutions.

[17]  Paolo Gerbaudo,et al.  In search of the ‘we’ of social media activism: introduction to the special issue on social media and protest identities , 2015 .

[18]  Emiliano Treré,et al.  Reclaiming, proclaiming, and maintaining collective identity in the #YoSoy132 movement in Mexico: an examination of digital frontstage and backstage activism through social media and instant messaging platforms , 2015 .

[19]  Sue Newell,et al.  Strategic opportunities (and challenges) of algorithmic decision-making: A call for action on the long-term societal effects of 'datification' , 2015, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[20]  W. Lowe,et al.  Using Twitter to mobilize protest action: online mobilization patterns and action repertoires in the Occupy Wall Street, Indignados, and Aganaktismenoi movements , 2015 .

[21]  Katharine Armstrong,et al.  Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think , 2014 .

[22]  A. Murphy The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure and Process , 2014 .

[23]  Aleksi Aaltonen,et al.  Everything counts in large amounts: a critical realist case study on data-based production , 2014, J. Inf. Technol..

[24]  Anne-Claire Pache,et al.  Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics , 2013 .

[25]  Alexander Hensby,et al.  Resisting the ‘protest business’: Bureaucracy, post-bureaucracy and active membership in social movement organizations , 2012 .

[26]  Nicholas Berente,et al.  Institutional Contradictions and Loose Coupling: Postimplementation of NASA's Enterprise Information System , 2012, Inf. Syst. Res..

[27]  Homero Gil de Zúñiga,et al.  Social Media Use for News and Individuals' Social Capital, Civic Engagement and Political Participation , 2012, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[28]  W. Bennett,et al.  DIGITAL MEDIA AND THE PERSONALIZATION OF COLLECTIVE ACTION , 2011 .

[29]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research , 2011 .

[30]  Peter Van Aelst,et al.  INTERNET AND SOCIAL MOVEMENT ACTION REPERTOIRES , 2010 .

[31]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Research Commentary - Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda , 2010, Inf. Syst. Res..

[32]  Ashley A. Bush,et al.  Platform Evolution: Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics , 2010 .

[33]  T. Reay,et al.  Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics , 2009 .

[34]  R. Greenwood,et al.  Institutional Entrepreneurship in Mature Fields: The Big Five Accounting Firms , 2006 .

[35]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[36]  Jacquelien van Stekelenburg,et al.  The social psychology of protest , 1997 .

[37]  R. Friedland Bringing Society Back In : Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions , 1991 .

[38]  Roberta Ash,et al.  Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay and Change , 1966 .