Early theorists were content to ass

Early theorists were content to assert or assume the importance of culturally based rule systems but did little more than illustrate such effects. More recently, a growing number of researchers have attempted to operationalize the concept of legitimacy. In moving from vague, general assertions about organizations being legitimated by societal values or being consistent with socially constructed models, researchers have had to confront several conceptual and measurement issues, including (1) What element or aspect of institutions is of interest? (2) What social actors are doing the legitimating, and what dimensions do they target? (3) What level (population, organization, subunit) is being assessed? and (4) What is the relative salience of the dimensions assessed?
What Elements?

While theorists have attended to somewhat distinctive institutional elements in formulating their views of legitimacy, it is useful to distinguish analytically among three basic components of institutions the normative, the regulative, and the cognitive each giving rise to a distinctive basis for evaluating legitimacy (Scott, 1995) and to distinctive types of control mechanisms-normative, coercive, and mimetic (DiMag- gio and Powell, 1983). The normative component, stressed by Weber's discussion of administrative systems, places emphasis on "normative rules that introduce a prescriptive, evaluative, and obligatory dimension into social life" (Scott,1995: 37). Organizations are subject to the application of generalized societal norms such as fair play but are particularly constrained by the existence of a variety of occupational and professional standards to which their participants subscribe (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Regulative institutions, such as Weber's "guaranteed law," stress the presence of "explicit regulative processes: rule setting, monitoring, and sanctioning activities" (Scott, 1995: 35). Such activities are often lodged in formal oversight structures, such as state agencies. Singh, Tucker, and House (1986) provided an illustration of regulatory legitimacy when they determined
whether voluntary social service organizations in Toronto obtained a charitable registration number from the state agency, Revenue Canada.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Teori awal adalah konten untuk menegaskan atau menganggap pentingnya sistem berdasarkan aturan budaya tetapi tidak lebih dari menggambarkan efek tersebut. Baru-baru ini, semakin banyak peneliti telah berusaha untuk mengoperasionalkan konsep legitimasi. Dalam bergerak dari yang samar-samar, pernyataan umum tentang organisasi yang disahkan oleh nilai-nilai sosial atau menjadi konsisten dengan model konstruksi sosial, peneliti harus menghadapi beberapa masalah konseptual dan pengukuran, termasuk (1) Unsur atau aspek lembaga yang menarik? (2) Apa aktor sosial lakukan legitimasi, dan apa dimensi yang mereka menargetkan? (3) Apa tingkat (populasi, organisasi, subunit) sedang dikaji? dan (4) Apa arti-penting relatif dari dimensi dinilai?
Apa Elements? Sementara teori telah hadir untuk unsur kelembagaan agak khas dalam merumuskan pandangan mereka legitimasi, hal ini berguna untuk membedakan analitis antara tiga komponen dasar dari lembaga normatif, yang regulatif , dan kognitif masing-masing sehingga menimbulkan secara khusus untuk mengevaluasi legitimasi (Scott, 1995) dan untuk jenis khas dari mekanisme-normatif kontrol, koersif, dan mimesis (DiMag- gio dan Powell, 1983). Komponen normatif, ditekankan oleh diskusi Weber dari sistem administrasi, menempatkan penekanan pada "aturan normatif yang memperkenalkan preskriptif, evaluatif, dan dimensi wajib dalam kehidupan sosial" (Scott, 1995: 37). Organisasi tunduk pada penerapan norma-norma sosial umum seperti fair play tetapi sangat dibatasi oleh adanya berbagai standar kerja dan profesional yang peserta mereka berlangganan (DiMaggio dan Powell, 1983). Lembaga regulatif, seperti Weber "dijamin hukum," stres kehadiran "eksplisit proses regulatif: pengaturan aturan, pemantauan, dan kegiatan sanksi" (Scott, 1995: 35). Kegiatan tersebut sering bersarang di struktur pengawasan formal, seperti lembaga negara. Singh, Tucker, dan Rumah (1986) memberikan ilustrasi legitimasi peraturan ketika mereka ditentukan apakah organisasi pelayanan sosial sukarela di Toronto memperoleh nomor registrasi amal dari lembaga negara, Pendapatan Kanada.