1 ON DOING INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS WITHOUT INSTITUTIONAL THEORY 1 Tim Hallett, Indiana University, hallett9@indiana.edu Hallett, Tim. 2019. “On Doing Institutional Analysis without Institutional Theory.” Pp. 42-60 in Institutions and Organizations: A Process View edited by Trish Reay, Tammar Zilber, Ann Langley, and Haridimos Tsoukas. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Abstract Can we do institutional analysis without institutional theory? Should we? These provocative questions prompt a reflection on institutional thought, but they also serve as an invitation for scholars in adjacent fields—process scholars among them—to reconsider the boundaries between fields and the benefits of crossing them. Such benefits are evident in the work of the founders of institutional theory, none of who were self-consciously “institutional” as they embarked on their careers. Reviewing their work reveals four keys for doing institutional analysis without institutional theory, and the importance of doing so. It also reveals some of the limits of contemporary institutional theory: the dominance of institutional theory in organizational studies is problematic in the sense that many of the most important insights and developments in institutional theory emerged through cross-fertilization across multiple fields, rather than the narrow cultivation of one. 1 Special thanks to the Indiana University Institute for Advanced Study for their support while writing this chapter. This chapter is based on a panel at the 2017 International Process Symposium titled “Making Institutional Theory Processual.” The panel included Renate Meyer, Mark de Rond, and myself, and in developing the panel we corresponded extensively to generate ideas. It was Renate who came up with the provocation, “Can we do institutional analysis without institutional theory?” While all three of us spoke to this during the panel, we agreed that I would take the lead on this question. Thus, while I am “author” of this essay, it is inspired by Renate and Mark and the many conversations with the participants at the meetings. I also thank Tammar Zilber and Trish Reay for their comments and encouragement.