Hijacking institutional logics in the implementation of a cancer trial

Abstract

Abstract Practice-based studies have demonstrated how institutional logics function as repertoires of cultural resources that actors may use strategically for professional (re-)positioning. This article focuses on the concept of hijacking based on a qualitative study of the implementation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in specialized cancer palliation. Using the logics-as-resources perspective as theoretical framing, we describe the negotiations and hijacking of logics that followed the introduction of the RCT and the temporary reversal of home logics between professional subgroups in cancer treatment and care. The analysis shows how hijacking unfolds in a highly institutionalized and complex professional healthcare setting characterized by intra-institutional heterogeneity. We contribute to the literature by highlighting how hijacking is related to power differentials and identity work and may contribute to obscuring underlying conflicts, in this case between science and care logics. The article develops our understanding of hijacking as a theoretical concept and an empirical phenomenon.