{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015625, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.055045871559633, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Protect to Damage? Institutional work, unintended consequences and institutional dynamics

How does institutional work to uphold an institution unintentionally challenge that institution? To answer this question, I trace institutional work of proponents of change and the norm majority – members of the public who show rectitude vis-à-vis perceived provocation against an established institution, in the context of America’s first bird protection movement. A historical process analysis reveals that institutional work unintentionally compromises institutions because the work can be seen as public conformity to the established institution. A model developed from the findings provides a more refined understanding of unintended consequences in institutional studies.