{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/77866"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/77866","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Normative Orders in the Coast Guard Response to Melting Arctic Ice: Institutional Logics or Anchoring Concepts","abstract":"Underlying institutional forms are normative orders which give meaning to rules, norms, practices and customs. It is only recently that scholars have seriously considered the role of normative orders in institutional dynamics. Two meta-theories of institutionalism offer competing visions of how these normative orders are invoked. The Institutional Logics Perspective calls normative orders “institutional logics” and suggest that they are invoked in a consistent stable fashion. The Pragmatist Institutionalism approach calls normative orders “anchoring concepts” and suggests that they are used in less predictable ways to produce meaning. This study introduces the concept of fidelity to capture the difference between these two approaches and test which approach may offer a more accurate account of how normative orders are invoked in practice. The study uses the case of the USCG response to melting Arctic ice to study this issue by focusing on the two most dominant normative orders of American government. The study relies on interviews conducted with USCG personnel dealing with the agency’s response to melting Artic Ice. The data is then analyzed through a narrative analysis framework. The study finds that normative orders are invoked, in this case, in a manner more closely aligned with Pragmatist Institutionalism. This finding has implications for how administrative judgement is understood especially with respect to public agencies.","abstract_html":"Underlying institutional forms are normative orders which give meaning to rules, norms, practices and customs. It is only recently that scholars have seriously considered the role of normative orders in institutional dynamics. Two meta-theories of institutionalism offer competing visions of how these normative orders are invoked. The Institutional Logics Perspective calls normative orders “institutional logics” and suggest that they are invoked in a consistent stable fashion. The Pragmatist Institutionalism approach calls normative orders “anchoring concepts” and suggests that they are used in less predictable ways to produce meaning. This study introduces the concept of fidelity to capture the difference between these two approaches and test which approach may offer a more accurate account of how normative orders are invoked in practice. The study uses the case of the USCG response to melting Arctic ice to study this issue by focusing on the two most dominant normative orders of American government. The study relies on interviews conducted with USCG personnel dealing with the agency’s response to melting Artic Ice. The data is then analyzed through a narrative analysis framework. The study finds that normative orders are invoked, in this case, in a manner more closely aligned with Pragmatist Institutionalism. This finding has implications for how administrative judgement is understood especially with respect to public agencies.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Haider, Haider A."],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Ph. D.","degree_level":"doctoral","degree_discipline":"Public Administration and Public Affairs","degree_department":"School of Public and International Affairs","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["Dull, Matthew M."],"committee_members":["Eckerd, Adam M.","Wolf, James F.","Khademian, Anne M."],"year":2017,"date_issued":"2017-05-26","date_published":"2017-05-26","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:20:05Z","subjects":["Institutionalism","Institutional Logics Perspective","Pragmatist Institutionalism","Decision Making","Narrative Analysis","Organizational Theory"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["vt_gsexam:11111"],"render_values":[{"text":"vt_gsexam:11111","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/77866","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["Dull, Matthew M."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Eckerd, Adam M.","Wolf, James F.","Khademian, Anne M."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["School of Public and International Affairs"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Haider, Haider A."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2017-05-27T08:00:14Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2017-05-27T08:00:14Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2017-05-26"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Public Administration and Public Affairs"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["doctoral"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph. D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Institutionalism","Institutional Logics Perspective","Pragmatist Institutionalism","Decision Making","Narrative Analysis","Organizational Theory"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["vt_gsexam:11111"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/77866"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Underlying institutional forms are normative orders which give meaning to rules, norms, practices and customs. It is only recently that scholars have seriously considered the role of normative orders in institutional dynamics. Two meta-theories of institutionalism offer competing visions of how these normative orders are invoked. The Institutional Logics Perspective calls normative orders “institutional logics” and suggest that they are invoked in a consistent stable fashion. The Pragmatist Institutionalism approach calls normative orders “anchoring concepts” and suggests that they are used in less predictable ways to produce meaning. This study introduces the concept of fidelity to capture the difference between these two approaches and test which approach may offer a more accurate account of how normative orders are invoked in practice. The study uses the case of the USCG response to melting Arctic ice to study this issue by focusing on the two most dominant normative orders of American government. The study relies on interviews conducted with USCG personnel dealing with the agency’s response to melting Artic Ice. The data is then analyzed through a narrative analysis framework. The study finds that normative orders are invoked, in this case, in a manner more closely aligned with Pragmatist Institutionalism. This finding has implications for how administrative judgement is understood especially with respect to public agencies."]},{"key":"dc:description.abstractgeneral","label":"General Abstract","values":["Rules, norms, practices and customs are all types of institutional forms which derive meaning from something called normative orders. Normative orders help individuals make determinations on things such as whether rules are “good”/“bad” or when those rules are appropriate to apply. While these normative orders are understood to be important, they are not yet well understood. Two recent approaches which attempt to better define normative orders offer competing visions. The Institutional Logics Perspective calls normative orders “institutional logics” and suggest that they are invoked in a consistent stable fashion. The Pragmatist Institutionalism approach calls normative orders “anchoring concepts” and suggests that they are used in less predictable ways to produce meaning. This study introduces the concept of fidelity to capture the difference between these two approaches and test which approach may offer a more accurate account of how normative orders are invoked in practice. The study uses the case of the USCG response to melting Arctic ice to study this issue by focusing on the two most dominant normative orders of American government. The study relies on interviews conducted with USCG personnel dealing with the agency’s response to melting Artic Ice. The data is then analyzed through a narrative analysis framework. The study finds that normative orders are invoked, in this case, in a manner more closely aligned with Pragmatist Institutionalism. This finding has implications for how administrative judgement is understood especially with respect to public agencies."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Ph. D."]},{"key":"dc:format.medium","label":"Dc Format Medium","values":["ETD"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Normative Orders in the Coast Guard Response to Melting Arctic Ice: Institutional Logics or Anchoring Concepts"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["Dull, Matthew M."],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Eckerd, Adam M.","Wolf, James F.","Khademian, Anne M."],"dc:contributor.department":["School of Public and International Affairs"],"dc:creator":["Haider, Haider A."],"dc:date.accessioned":["2017-05-27T08:00:14Z"],"dc:date.available":["2017-05-27T08:00:14Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2017-05-26"],"dc:description.abstract":["Underlying institutional forms are normative orders which give meaning to rules, norms, practices and customs. It is only recently that scholars have seriously considered the role of normative orders in institutional dynamics. Two meta-theories of institutionalism offer competing visions of how these normative orders are invoked. The Institutional Logics Perspective calls normative orders “institutional logics” and suggest that they are invoked in a consistent stable fashion. The Pragmatist Institutionalism approach calls normative orders “anchoring concepts” and suggests that they are used in less predictable ways to produce meaning. This study introduces the concept of fidelity to capture the difference between these two approaches and test which approach may offer a more accurate account of how normative orders are invoked in practice. The study uses the case of the USCG response to melting Arctic ice to study this issue by focusing on the two most dominant normative orders of American government. The study relies on interviews conducted with USCG personnel dealing with the agency’s response to melting Artic Ice. The data is then analyzed through a narrative analysis framework. The study finds that normative orders are invoked, in this case, in a manner more closely aligned with Pragmatist Institutionalism. This finding has implications for how administrative judgement is understood especially with respect to public agencies."],"dc:description.abstractgeneral":["Rules, norms, practices and customs are all types of institutional forms which derive meaning from something called normative orders. Normative orders help individuals make determinations on things such as whether rules are “good”/“bad” or when those rules are appropriate to apply. While these normative orders are understood to be important, they are not yet well understood. Two recent approaches which attempt to better define normative orders offer competing visions. The Institutional Logics Perspective calls normative orders “institutional logics” and suggest that they are invoked in a consistent stable fashion. The Pragmatist Institutionalism approach calls normative orders “anchoring concepts” and suggests that they are used in less predictable ways to produce meaning. This study introduces the concept of fidelity to capture the difference between these two approaches and test which approach may offer a more accurate account of how normative orders are invoked in practice. The study uses the case of the USCG response to melting Arctic ice to study this issue by focusing on the two most dominant normative orders of American government. The study relies on interviews conducted with USCG personnel dealing with the agency’s response to melting Artic Ice. The data is then analyzed through a narrative analysis framework. The study finds that normative orders are invoked, in this case, in a manner more closely aligned with Pragmatist Institutionalism. This finding has implications for how administrative judgement is understood especially with respect to public agencies."],"dc:description.degree":["Ph. D."],"dc:format.medium":["ETD"],"dc:identifier.other":["vt_gsexam:11111"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/77866"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:subject":["Institutionalism","Institutional Logics Perspective","Pragmatist Institutionalism","Decision Making","Narrative Analysis","Organizational Theory"],"dc:title":["Normative Orders in the Coast Guard Response to Melting Arctic Ice: Institutional Logics or Anchoring Concepts"],"dc:type":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Public Administration and Public Affairs"],"thesis:degree_level":["doctoral"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph. D."],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:20:05Z"}