business practices were fitted well to institutions in the host society, meaning that they
highlight the importance of contextualization.
Transfers as Contextualization
Another line of inquiry emphasizes symbolic and ideational dimensions of transfers (e.g.,
Brannen 2004; Czarniawska & Joerges 1996). This approach is predominant in the literature
on New Institutional Theory and Actor-Network Theory. Studies of contextualization seek to
identify how symbolic elements shape the meaning of transferred business practices,
providing them with a new context. Individuals evoke symbolic elements like beliefs, norms,
values, language and artifacts in this process of contextualization.
Contextualization is sometimes initiated by individuals outside the state structure who
sponsor or pull in a foreign practice because they see unexpected opportunities that suit their
own material or moral ends (Jacoby 2000: 20-21). They rely on individual perceptions and
strategies to do so (Creed et al. 2002; Frenkel 2005; Zilber 2006: 300). The literature on
transfers has identified two main strategies of contextualization. One strategy is to remove
undesirable elements from an original practice to increase its appeal in a specific host society
(Westney 1987) or to give it general appeal in societies that may adopt it (Sahlin-Anderson
1996). Another strategy is to add local elements to the transferred practice to make it more
meaningful and acceptable in the host society (Boxenbaum 2006; Campbell 2004; Casper &
Hancké 1999; Lippi 2000).
These two strategies shed some light on contextualization and offer a valuable
foundation for analyzing the role of institutions in the transfer process. However, they give an
insufficient account of the strategies that individuals employ to successfully transfer a
business practice across dissimilar societies. For instance, why do individuals choose to
combine a transferred practice with one local practice rather than another? There are always