The process of collectively embracing a particular solution preference and altering the enacted structure accordingly is sometimes referred to as institutional redesign (Goodin, 1998; Pettit, 1996), a term we will also adopt here. Institutional redesign can take place in two ways, the first of which is through praxis: ‘the free and creative reconstruction of social patterns on the basis of a reasoned analysis of both the limits and the potentials of present social forms’ (Seo and Creed, 2002: 225). Praxis can work if there is a dominant actor who is able to persuade or coerce its peers into adopting its solution preference (Lawrence et al., 2002). A second route to institutional redesign is to call upon an external authority — public or private — to adopt, enact, and enforce one of the available solution proposals. The latter route is much more common, since many issues resemble so-called meta-problems (Chevalier, 1966) where resolution requires many resources that are not readily found under a single roof.
(Lamertz et al. 2003: 88)
Lamertz, K. Martens, M. and Heugens, P. 2003. Issue Evolution: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective. Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 6, (1), pp.82-93. doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540192
See also, Heresthetics, Institutional Rule Manipulation
marchudson.net 