Presenter Symposium ORGANIZING AND ADMINISTRATION IN ...€¦ · highest amount of refugees at any given point since World War II (UNHCR, 2015). The Syrian refugee crises alone has

1 Submission Number: 16699

Presenter Symposium

ORGANIZING AND ADMINISTRATION IN REFUGEE CRISES:

AVENUES FOR THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION

BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND MIGRATION STUDIES

Presenters and co-authors:

The migration crisis and institutional complexity – bringing the emotional and visual

dimensions into focus

Janina Reich

University of Edinburgh Business School

University of Edinburgh

Edinburgh, UK

[email protected]

John Amis



Edinburgh, UK

[email protected]

Discussant:

Jerry Davis

University of Michigan Business School

University of Michigan

United States

[email protected]

Organizers:

Marian Gatzweiler



UK

[email protected]

John Amis



UK

[email protected]

Session Chair:

Royston Greenwood

Alberta School of Business

University of Alberta

Canada

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







The Emergence of Institutional Voids: Managing the Permanence of Transient Refugee

Camps

Marlen de la Chaux

Judge Business School

University of Cambridge

Cambridge, UK

[email protected]

On the Design and Practice of Heterarchical Accounts: A Case Study of Humanitarian

Performance Evaluation in a Large Scale Refugee Camp

Marian Gatzweiler



Edinburgh, UK

[email protected]

The adoption of evidence in a humanitarian emergency organization:

A practice repertoire perspective

Corinna Frey



Cambridge, UK

[email protected]

Michael Barrett



Trumpington St

Cambridge, CB2 1AG

[email protected]

Potential Sponsor Divisions: Organization and Management Theory, Social Issues in

Management and Public and Non-Profit Management Divisions






ABSTRACT

The link between management and refugee studies is still a relatively emerging and underexplored

one (Mintzberg, 2001; Phillips and Hardy, 1997). Yet, connecting these two areas of research offers

promising synergies for both fields. The recent European migration crisis points to the practical

need for academic engagement across disciplines in this area. However, as the studies collected in

this symposium proposal demonstrate, the highly dynamic and volatile contexts of refugee crises

and humanitarian organisations also offer great potential for theoretical insights. This is particularly

apposite when we think about the conference theme of ‘making organizations meaningful’. The

symposium will highlight and discuss conceptual issues of humanitarian practice that in particular

offer potential for contributions from management research as well as imply opportunities for

practical implications. To accomplish this, each author draws on different organizational theories

and distinct empirical contexts. These include issues surrounding (1) projects to standardize

systems and metrics to evaluate humanitarian performance, (2) ) the implications of the current

refugee crises for navigating institutional complexity, (3) the adoption and diffusion of evidence

practices in humanitarian emergency contexts, and (4) entrepreneurial activity in refugee camps

within the context of institutional voids.

Keywords: Refugee Crises, Valuation Practices, Institutional Logics, Administration, Meaningful

Organizations, Humanitarian Practice


OVERVIEW OF SYMPOSIUM

Nearly sixty million people are displaced around the world today. This number represents the

highest amount of refugees at any given point since World War II (UNHCR, 2015). The Syrian

refugee crises alone has displaced more than ten million people, many of which are underage,

causing a large scale prolonged humanitarian crisis. Many of Syria’s surrounding countries face

considerable management challenges as a result, as public finances become strained and security

concerns have to be balanced with administrative and human rights issues (Porges, 2014). The

influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees into the European Union has also initiated fierce

debates among member states on how to respond on a policy and administrative level. Data on

decades of refugee crises around the world reveals that the average operating time of refugee camps

from opening to closing lies at around 20 years, while the average stay of refugees in camps adds

up to around 12 years (UNHCR, 2013). As generations of families live in camps, often under

conditions of dependency and deprivation, a more sustainable and reflective approach to

management techniques and governance is required. While the majority of camps are run through

an informal assembly of loosely coupled public-private-non-for-profit partnerships, the basic

management models through which these sites are run remains largely unchanged since the 1950s

(Betts and Collier, 2015). In light of these issues, the management of the current refugee crisis has

frequently been described as one of the defining challenges of our time. Yet there is a surprising

paucity of research relating to management related issues in regards to problems and opportunities

generated by forced migration and refugees (see Mintzberg, 2001).

The symposium’s four papers will explore key questions that individually and collectively can

advance the contribution of organization and management scholarship to refugee studies to make

organizations meaningful. To accomplish this, each author draws on different organizational


theories and distinct empirical contexts. These include issues surrounding (1) projects to

standardize systems and metrics to evaluate humanitarian performance, (2) ) the implications of

the current refugee crises for navigating institutional complexity, (3) the adoption and diffusion of

evidence practices in humanitarian emergency contexts, and (4) entrepreneurial activity in refugee

camps within the context of institutional voids.

In the first paper, Gatzweiler explores the question of how humanitarian evaluation systems can

be designed to accommodate and mediate between diverse value criteria while remaining

applicable to the highly uncertain and dynamic environment that commonly defines humanitarian

practice. Informed by empirical research of management practices in large-scale refugee camps in

Jordan, Gatzweiler’s study takes interest in the design and enactment of the most widely used

performance evaluation system developed for humanitarian response operations: the Sphere

Standards. The inter-disciplinary study focuses on theorizing how Sphere’s evaluation system is

designed to allow for uncertainty and ambivalence and how this design contributes to fostering

attitudes of anti-reductionism in humanitarian governance and decision-making. In particular, the

paper explores the concept of heterarchical design (Lamont, 2012; Stark, 2009) and how it can be

employed to facilitate users’ engagement with multiple valuation regimes without alienating

certain value drivers in a preconceived fashion. It is argued that the concept of heterarchy provides

a fruitful metaphor to further theorize the interrelationship between accounting, evaluation and

organizing practices (Miller and Power, 2013: Czarniawska, 2009). To develop this argument, the

research draws inspiration from recent productive synergies between the Sociology of Worth

(SOW) (Stark, 2009) and Actor-Network Theory (ANT) (Latour, 1999; Callon et al., 2007).

In the second paper, Reich and Amis contend that, while the availability of multiple institutional

logics is widely acknowledged in institutional theory, explanations about how and why some logics


become more dominant and gain primacy over others remain limited. They argue that the recent

visual and emotional turns in organizational studies provide us with an opportunity to increase our

understanding in this area by allowing us to access the connections between micro-levels of

interaction and macro-institutional change. They do so by analysing newspaper articles on the

current migration crisis, specifically the discourse before and after the release of the image of three-

year-old Syrian boy Alan Kurdi lying face-down and lifeless in the sea. Their data reveal that the

discourse changed dramatically after the release of the image. This suggests that a change in logics

may have taken place. Reich and Amis provide a theoretical explanation for this phenomenon by

integrating the emotional and visual turns in institutional theory. They propose that the image of

Alan Kurdi triggered empathy that not only changed the discourse on the migration crisis, but also

had an institutional effect at a societal level. Based on this theorizing, they argue that the discourse

prior to the picture reinforced the dominant logic, but that the subsequent image and verbal

discourse collectively undermined the dominant logic resulting in a new logic coming to the fore.

Thus, their work not only sheds light on what factors impact the dominance of one institutional

logic over another, but also on the causes of deinstitutionalization. In doing so, the paper also

attends to one of the blind spots in institutional theory more generally, namely how to link the

macro- and micro-levels of institutions. Finally, they develop a theoretical explanation that helps

to capture the evolving impact of the migration crisis across Europe.

The third paper by Frey and Barrett explores the adoption of evidence practices in extreme

environments such as refugee crises (Barin Cruz et al. 2015; Mintzberg 2001). The literature

significantly contributed to our understanding of the adoption of practices in consultancy firms

(Orlikowski 2000), Fortune 500 companies (Jarzabkowski et al. 2012; Raffaelli and Glynn 2014)

or Business Schools (Gehman et al. 2013). However we know less about practice adoption in


contexts where practices develop ‘exceptionally’ (Mintzberg 2001). Drawing on practice theory

(Feldman and Orlikowski 2011; Giddens 1984) we analyze the empirical case of Global Aid, an

international emergency organization operating in refugee crises currently promoting the use of

evidence. Building on insights from a two-year qualitative study at both headquarters and field

offices our findings disclose the adoption of evidence practices to assess population needs or to

demonstrate results, however hardly when designing interventions. We explain this selective

adoption of practices by referring to its embeddedness in, what we term, practice repertoires, and

the salient organizational values, norms and power dynamics. We thereby explore the currently

neglected meso-level dynamics between practices and structures (Vaara and Whittington 2012;

Feldman and Orlikowski 2011) conceptualizing practice repertoire as a set of valid, legitimate and

available practices facilitating social action in fast-paced and uncertain contexts and stabilizing

practices globally across time and space. Additionally we contribute to studies on evidence by

refocusing the literature’s attention from evidence strength (Briner et al. 2009; Rousseau 2006) to

the complexity of practices for evidence use.

The fourth paper by de la Chaux explores how institutional voids, i.e. environments with unclear

dominant norms and practices, emerge. Our study of entrepreneurial activity in refugee camps

explains how actors manage environments in which their lived experiences diverge from prevailing

norms and practices. Specifically, many refugees spend decades in camps yet dominant camp

institutions continue to promote the assumption that camps are transient spaces. Although refugee

camp entrepreneurship is illegal as it implies permanence, entrepreneurial activity is widespread

among refugees and gives meaning to their life in a transient community. Analysis of

entrepreneurial activity in refugee camps identifies three antecedents – paralysis, ambiguity and

incongruence – that interrelate to constitute an institutional void regarding the assumed longevity


of the camps. This paper contributes to research on institutions by explaining how institutional

voids emerge and speaks to practitioners and policy makers by discussing the implications of

refugee camps’ temporal dynamics.


PROPOSED FORMAT OF SYMPOSIUM

Length: 90 min

Minutes 0 – 5: Welcome and Introduction by Professor Royston Greenwood

Minutes 5 – 53: Paper presentations

The selective adoption of evidence practices in humanitarian emergency. Presented by

Corinna Frey

On the Design and Practice of Heterarchical Accounts: A Case Study of Humanitarian

Performance Evaluation in a Large Scale Refugee Camp. Presented by Marian Gatzweiler

The current migration crisis and its lessons for institutional complexity – bringing the

emotional and visual dimensions into focus. Presented by John Amis

The Emergence of Institutional Voids: Managing the Permanence of Transient Refugee

Camps Presented by Marlen de la Chaux

Minutes 53 – 68: Discussant

Discussant: Professor Jerry Davis

Minutes 68 – 90: Open discussion


RELEVANCE TO DIVISIONS

This symposium is being submitted to the Organization and Management Theory, Social Issues in

Management and Public and Non-Profit Management Divisions. Below we explain the relevance

to each of these divisions.

Organization and Management Theory

The issues addressed in this symposium lie at the center of several theoretical interests of the

Organization and Management Theory (OMT) division. A first area of shared interest between the

symposium and OMT is the development of theories and methods that address multiple value

criteria and principles, including dignity, sustainability and integrity. The symposium focuses on

the theorization of the question of how humanitarian performance evaluation standards not only

act as a norm carrier as they travel into the field but also how they facilitate the performativity of

the eclectic and ever changing nature of humanitarian practice. A second area of overlapping

interest with the OMT content domain relates to challenges of governance and control within

contexts of institutional complexity. While refugee camps are inherently contested political spaces

that are organized in the absence of formalized governance mechanisms, they offer a promising

site within which theoretical issues of ‘institutional settlements’ can be explored and theorized.

Settlements between conflicting institutional logics form a crucial element in the temporary

stabilization of the otherwise highly disrupted setting of refugee crises.

Social Issues in Management

The symposium should also be of interest to members of the Social Issues in Management Division,

particularly with respect to the question of how to construe and develop meaningful organizations

and meaningful ways of organizing. In this way, our symposium also ties in with the overarching


theme of the Annual Meeting. As emphasized by the manager of one of the largest refugee

settlements in the Middle East, refugee camps are becoming new cities of the world. The way these

sites are built from the ground up and managed can have significant long-term impacts on

economic, social and political developments in entire regions of the globe. Researching and re-

thinking innovative administrative solutions for refugee camps, and the often informal ways of

organizing that define these settlements, therefore offer significant potential not only in ethical but

also in economic terms. Further, our focus on refugee and migration problems allows us to develop

theoretical insights that will have broader relevance beyond the immediate empirical applications

presented here.

Public and Non-Profit Division

This symposium should also be of interest to members of the Public and Non-Profit Division in

several interrelated ways. Evaluating organizational performance and impact as well as navigating

institutional complexity constitutes one of the central challenges for public and non-profit

management. Conceptual issues surrounding both of these elements, evaluating performance and

navigating complexity, are magnified in refugee settings. These settings are commonly defined by

prolonged and large-scale public-private-non-profit partnerships in which it is difficult to

analytically separate the activities and impact of organizational practices. Evaluation and other

managerial information systems may hereby serve as mediating technologies between economic,

political and social concerns within organizations, thereby facilitating decision-making, evidence-

based-practices, reflection and compromise around competing institutional logics and value claims.

All of these areas do not only form central concerns of the symposium but are also key areas of

interest for the Division.


INDIVIDUAL PAPER ABSTRACTS

The adoption of evidence in a humanitarian emergency organization:

A practice repertoire perspective

Corinna Frey & Michael Barrett


Recent research has highlighted the difficulty in the adoption and diffusion of new practices to

effectively respond to natural disasters, refugee crises or global development needs (Barin Cruz,

Aguilar Delgado, Leca, & Gond, 2015; McKague, Zietsma, & Oliver, 2015; Zanello, Fu, Mohnen,

& Ventresca, 2015). Most prominent are observations of the limited adoption of evidence practices

in emergency organizations, hoped to improve how population needs are assessed, crises

interventions designed or impact demonstrated (Bradt, 2009; Jones, 2012).

The literature so far has significantly contributed to our understanding of the (non-) diffusion and

adoption of practices elaborating on new technology practices in consultancy firms (Cousins &

Robey, 2005; Orlikowski, 2000), the development of coordination practices in FTSE 100 or

Fortune 500 companies (Jarzabkowski, Lê, & Feldman, 2012; Raffaelli & Glynn, 2014) or value

practices in Business Schools (Gehman, Trevino, & Garud, 2013). However we know less about

the adoption of practices in extreme contexts, an environment in which practices are expected to

develop exceptionally (Mintzberg, 2001). Taking the contextual embeddedness of practices

seriously, our interest is to explore the adoption and diffusion of evidence practices in the context

of such extreme operating environments, providing an opportunity for theoretical development

based on unusual cases (Weick, 1993).

To better understand the adoption of new practices, we draw on a practice theory

perspective (Cetina, Schatzki, & von Savigny, 2001; Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011; Nicolini,


2013), in particular Giddens’ theoretical developments (Giddens, 1979, 1984), to recognize the

reciprocal relation between daily activities and contextual structures. The conceptualization of

practices as “those social actions that recursively produce and reproduce the structures that

constrain and enable actions.” (Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011: 1241; Reckwitz, 2002) emphasizes

structures as both the medium as well as the outcome of practices, thereby enabling and

constraining human agency and social conduct (Giddens, 1984; Stones, 2005). In addition, practice

theory shifts our empirical focus from practitioners to practices and the daily activities of

organizational members (Gherardi, 2012; Nicolini, 2011, 2013). In particular, practice theory

allows us to first conceptualize evidence use as social practice enacted on a daily basis and at the

same time appreciating its embeddedness within the wider organizational context. Second, we

introduce the concept of practice repertoire as a set of valid, legitimate and available practices

which are selectively drawn on to facilitate social action in fast-paced, uncertain and emergent

environments, and which simultaneously serve to stabilize practices globally across time and space.

Global Aid as an international emergency organization operating in refugee crises was

chosen as case study for two reasons. First, since 2010 it has increasingly sought to respond to the

ongoing quest in the sector for evidence use by promoting practices to explicitly apply information

and data when assessing population needs, designing crises interventions or demonstrating results.

Second, the organization is operating in a global high-risk and fast-paced environment being held

accountable for life-saving activities during refugee crises worldwide.

We address our research question through a qualitative longitudinal in depth case study.

The empirical material was collected over a period of 2 years including several different data

collection phases (Table 1). Following a Grounded Theory approach this allowed us to oscillate

between the empirical findings and emerging theoretical insights (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Locke,

1996). The analysis is based upon three sources, participant observation, interviews (formal and


informal) as well as archival materials (public and private). In line with practice theory the key

source of information was an extended period of participant observation at both the organisation’s

headquarters (4 months, part-time) as well as one country office in Kigali, Rwanda (3 months, full-

time) getting familiar with the daily working practices, technologies, norms and values

(Czarniawska-Joerges, 2007). In addition, 81 formal and 95 informal interviews were conducted

as well as 98 public and 122 private archival documents reviewed. The data was analysed applying

the Grounded Theory methodology of open, axial and selective coding (Corbin & Strauss, 1990)

to develop overarching theoretical themes.

Surprisingly, we find that Global Aid adopted evidence practices especially when assessing

needs and demonstrating results, however hardly when designing crises interventions. We explain

this selective adoption of evidence practices by referring to its embeddedness in its organizing

structure mediated through what we term a practice repertoire. In particular, we refer to organizing

structures such as values implying an explicit beneficiary focus and a prevailing sense of

exceptionalism among staff members delimiting against other types of organisations, norms as the

vertical cooperation with supervisors and a highly operational working style as well as power

dynamics such as new funding requirements and the increasingly competitive humanitarian

landscape. The practice repertoire refers to the different organization-wide sets of practices which

are drawn on at various points over time. In our case study, we identified practice repertoires as

including: ‘comprehensive needs assessment’ as well as a ‘results-based framework’ that facilitate

and stabilize evidence practices to assess population needs or demonstrate results in this global

emergency context. In detail, the organization’s needs assessment framework legitimizes certain

daily evidence practices such as reaching out to the field to directly assess evidence on

beneficiaries’ needs. This practice repertoire strongly aligns with organizational norms such as the

exclusive focus on refugees as well as the operational working style, where being in the field is


considered more legitimate than sitting at one’s desk. In addition, the results-based framework

enables local staff to systematically report evidence through pre-defined indicators and outputs.

This practice repertoire is aligned with the new sector-wide funding requirements mainly

introduced by private sector donors. However, interestingly no such practice repertoire was adopted

that would legitimize and incentivize the application of best practices, lessons learnt or academic

evidence when designing an intervention. The development of such a repertoire was constrained

by the organization’s highly operational working style and sense of exceptionalism which

disregards the analysis and use of research findings as well as a strong vertical hierarchy which

delegitimizes information sharing amongst colleagues (Table 2).

Our study makes two specific contributions, referring to practice theory as well as the

literature on evidence utilization. First, in highlighting the notion of practice repertoire as a set of

valid, legitimate and available practices we contribute to a better understanding of the selective

adoption of practices. Currently, practice scholars interested in the adoption of new practices are

concerned that the embeddedness of these practices is yet to be fully explored, especially

concerning the translation of structural properties into daily practices and vice versa for the

emergence of practices (Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011; Orlikowski, 2010; Vaara & Whittington,

2012). In exploring the meso-level dynamics (Stones, 2005) between daily practices and contextual

structures we refer to practice repertoires, conceptualizing structure and practice at an intermediary

ontological level. In particular we break down how i) a practice repertoire mediates the translation

of structures into daily social conduct and how in turn ii) daily practices reinforce or alter structural

properties through practice repertoires. In particular, i) we propose that organizational norms and

values get inscribed into practice repertoires constituting a set of valid, legitimate and available

practices which in turn legitimizes or de-legitimizes daily activities on the ground. ii) We further

highlight that practice repertoires emerge by recursively building on existing daily practices and


that the manifestation of valid, legitimate and available practices as a repertoire in turn reinforces

or alters organizational norms, values and power structures.

When adopting a new practice, practice repertoires as the intermediary between structures

and daily practices are of specific relevance in contexts of extreme operating environments. This

is first due to the fact that agents operating in an extremely uncertain and high risk environment

need to be able to rely on a pre-defined repertoire of valid, legitimate and available practices that

can be routinely and unconsciously applied, providing a sense of security in an unstable

environment. Second, practice repertoires ensure that daily practices are linked across the different

organizational field-offices, sub-offices and headquarters dealing with the emergency and thereby

stabilizing the adoption of a practice globally across time and space.

As the specific focus of our study was on evidence practices we also contribute to studies

on evidence-based management in organizations by refocusing the literature’s attention on the

complexity of practices. So far the literature primarily examined the nature (Briner, Denyer, &

Rousseau, 2009; Rousseau, 2006) or strength of evidence (Reay, Berta, & Kohn, 2009) and thereby

neglected its daily use in practice (Gkeredakis et al., 2011). Our study radically shifts focus by

questioning how evidence gets utilized, examining the contextual enactment of evidence practices

in humanitarian emergencies. We thereby propose to conceptualize evidence use as a social

practice shaped by and shaping organizational values, norms and power dynamics inscribed in and

mediated through practice repertoires as sets of valid, legitimate and available practices

dynamically selected in performing different forms of organizing over time.


On the Design and Practice of Heterarchical Accounts:

A Case Study of Humanitarian Performance Evaluation in a Large Scale Refugee Camp

Marian Konstantin Gatzweiler


Standardization of performance evaluation metrics and systems in the humanitarian sector gained

momentum as a key theme amongst practitioners following the 1994 Rwanda genocide. The

widespread public perception of a futile and uncoordinated response to the refugee crisis revealed

the damage humanitarians could cause by failing to deliver on the requirements of assistance and

protection (Ramalingam et al. 2009; Barnett, 2011). Among the severe criticisms of the aid

operation was the absence of any consistent, verifiable standards against which performance of

humanitarian operations could be measured and evaluated across implementing agencies (JEEAR,

1996). While the scale and publicity of the reported malpractices in Rwanda was unprecedented,

the management and policy challenges did not reveal uncommon or unique challenges in

comparison to previous operations and remain timely in the governance of today’s refugee crises.

Systematic approaches that seek to monitor and measure humanitarian value face several

key problems. Humanitarianism is an eclectic field of practice that is shaped by at least two

interrelated currents. Firstly, humanitarian practice commonly takes place at the overlap of

different areas of knowledge production. These include health sciences, accounting, politics, law

and ethics (Rottenburg, 2009: Barnett, 2011). While humanitarian practice draws from the value

criteria of all of these areas, it belongs to none. Secondly, within the context of the often chaotic,

complex and fast-changing humanitarian environment, flexibility and adaptability form inherent

requirements for the practical application of any humanitarian evaluation system (Ramalingam,

2013). A resulting implication of these two currents is that humanitarian value is inherently

relational, contextual and emergent, rather than assuming a fixed and preconceived ontological


status (Antal et al. 2015; Kornberger et al., 2015). In light of the fluid nature of humanitarian value,

standard setters face the challenge to conceive of a non-essentialist approach to evaluation systems,

going beyond notions of representation.

Against this background, the paper explores the question of how humanitarian evaluation

systems can be designed to accommodate and mediate between diverse value criteria while

remaining applicable to the highly uncertain and dynamic environment that commonly defines

humanitarian practice. Informed by empirical research of management practices in large-scale

refugee camps in Jordan, the inter-disciplinary study takes interest in the design and enactment of

the most widely used performance evaluation system developed for humanitarian response

operations: The Sphere Standards. The paper focuses on theorizing how Sphere’s evaluation

system is designed to allow for uncertainty and ambivalence and how this design contributes to

fostering attitudes of anti-reductionism in humanitarian governance and decision-making. In

particular, the paper explores the concept of heterarchical design (Lamont, 2012; Stark, 2009) and

how it can be employed to facilitate users’ engagement with multiple valuation regimes without

alienating certain value drivers in a preconceived fashion. Gehman et al. (2013, p.106) define

heterarchies “as relations of interdependence wherein authority is distributed, accountability is

lateral, monitoring is mutual, and justifications are multiple”. By focusing on the affordances that

form part of Sphere’s performance evaluation format and method, the paper demonstrates how

Sphere is developed according to heterarchical design principles and how this shapes managerial

practices in a large scale refugee camp as heterarchy comes to be enacted. It is argued that the

concept of heterarchy provides a fruitful metaphor to further theorize the interrelationship between

accounting, evaluation and organizing practices (Miller and Power, 2013: Czarniawska, 2009).

Theoretically and conceptually, the paper draws from and contributes to the recent ‘practice

turn’ in valuation studies (Stark, 2009; Kornberger et al., 2015; Gehman et al., 2013). As stressed


by Gehman et al. (2013), notions of value and values have long been considered important to

analyse and explain organizational activities. Yet current literature stops short of developing a

dynamic understanding of valuation practices:

“This approach enables us to move from cognitive understandings of values as abstract

principles and cultural understandings of values as symbolic artifacts to a performative

understanding of values as situated in networks of practices” (Gehman et al., 2013, p.86).

Instead of conceptualizing value(s) as abstract principles or cultural artefacts, Gehman et al.

highlight that what is valuable, why it is valued and how it is constructed and made identifiable

requires an analytical focus on the practices through which values are performed. One important

implication of this approach is a need to re-conceptualize the relationship between values work and

organizational governance: “values practices emerge not as a kind of terra firma on which an

organization's governance might rest, but as one more aspect of organizing that is itself in need of

governance” (Gehman et al., 2013, p.106). Recent research by Stark (2009) and Antal et al. (2015)

shows how such a form of value(s) governance can itself be an important factor for organizational

resilience. Stark challenges the common contention that under conditions of uncertainty and

ambiguity, stability of organizational values is a key criterion for success. Instead, organizational

adaptability depends on the ability to keep multiple evaluation principles at play and exploit the

resulting friction between them (Stark, 2009; Antal et al. 2015).

We contend that the recent ‘practice turn’ in valuation studies opens up new theoretical

insights to investigate the conditions enabling and constraining the governance of heterarchies of

value(s) (Stark, 2009; Lamont, 2012). Although valuation as a practice constitutes an emerging

research field and has recently received some attention, previous studies have mainly focused on

organizational routines, structures and rituals to theorize valuation practices (Gehman et al. 2013;

Stark, 2009). This paper more explicitly focuses on the design and format of evaluation systems as


central cites in which notions of value are contested and mediated. As stressed by Chenhall et al.

(2013:269): “accounts of performance are critical because it is in discussions over the different

metrics, images and words that can be used to represent performance that the actual worth of things

is frequently debated and contested”. In line with this argument, this paper focuses its attention on

the devices and practices through which humanitarian value is constituted and governed.

Methods

The research problem is addressed through a qualitative study with empirical material

collected over a fifteen-month period. The data collection involved visits to two refugee camps in

Jordan (one week per camp) during which twenty semi-structured interviews as well as participant

observations were carried out. Participants included refugee camp managers, engineers, evaluation

officers and community organizers. Subsequent to the visits, follow-up interviews with several of

the participants were conducted over a period of ten months. Furthermore, data collection included

eight semi-structured interviews with Sphere standard setters and with current and former Sphere

board members enabling the study to investigate the ‘thought-parcel’ behind its evaluation system.

Finally, the research is informed by document analysis in relation to the development of Sphere’s

format and evaluation reports as well as governance frameworks from the refugee camps. To enable

theorization, the research was guided by a grounded theory approach permitting a shift back and

forth between empirical data and theory in a triangulating manner (Corbin and Strauss, 1990)

Findings

The paper explores the concept of heterarchical design to capture three interlinked elements

that make Sphere a performable technique attuned to the highly dynamic environments

humanitarians have to commonly operate in. Firstly, the notion of heterarchy implies an evolving

conceptualization of the notion of accounting classification, entailing a shift beyond the analysis


of the implications of ‘imperfect’ performance metrics towards a relational understanding of value

(Stark, 2009; Jordan and Messner, 2012). By designing its performance evaluation system around

heterarchical principles, Sphere promotes a method in which incompleteness does not constitute a

flaw to be mitigated but it instead functions as a source for action and organizational reflection. As

shown in the case study, rather than measuring stable value categories, the purpose of heterarchical

systems is the formation of new value categories by associating the open evaluation dimensions in

a multitude of ways based on contextual requirements. Secondly, building on these insights, we

show how its design allowed Sphere’s performance evaluation system to serve as a type of non-

digital search engine for the refugee camp managers. Our case study provides rich evidence of how

the openness between the unranked elements of Sphere’s heterarchy of value(s) contributed to a

search based on raising important questions rather than giving fixed and often unhelpful answers.

Thirdly, the paper contends that the concept of heterarchy contributes to a theorization of

accounting technologies following a procedural approach to valuation based on method rather than

content (see Quattrone, 2015a, b). While Sphere is rich in content in the form of indicators, metrics,

formulas, norms, guidance notes and performance dimensions, they serve a different purpose than

taking the function of a data retrieval device, such as Burchell et al’s (1980) accounting answer

machines. While the evaluation of outcomes and outputs remains an important element, searching

for fruitful combinations of Sphere’s heterarchical performance dimensions helped the refugee

camp managers not to simply retrieve information according to a pre-set formula but to invent new

forms of associations, engagement and solutions for the camp (Quattrone, 2015a; Rocha, 2001).


The migration crisis and institutional complexity – bringing the emotional and visual

dimensions into focus

Janina Reich & John Amis


When looking at the discourse used by politicians in the UK to describe the migration crisis,

“swarm of people”, “cockroaches” and “economic migrants” were common descriptors used from

early- to mid-2015. Rather than speaking of a humanitarian crisis, political leaders preferred using

terms like “immigration” and “events of this summer” when referring to the migration. The terms

of the debate changed dramatically on September 2, 2015, when images of three-year-old Syrian

Alan Kurdi lying face-down and lifeless in the sea populated newspapers and television screens.

Immediately, people fleeing their home countries were termed as “refugees” and politicians started

to speak of a “migration crisis”. Moreover, discourse became more humane and morally laden in

general with political leaders talking about “moral responsibilities” and “efforts of solidarity”.

According to Lamin and Zaheer (2012: 56), “the media both influence and reflect societal values.”

If so, this image had apparently resulted in a substantial shift in societal values, or institutional

logics.

Institutional logics constitute “frames of reference that condition actors’ choices for

sensemaking, the vocabulary they use to motivate action, and their sense of self and identity”

(Thornton et al., 2012: 2). Here Thornton et al. (2012) build directly on Friedland and Alford’s

(1991) conceptualization of society as an interinstitutional system, which is made up of multiple

institutional orders operating at the societal, organizational and individual levels. As theorizing of

institutional logics has developed, it has become apparent that institutional orders make multiple

logics available to actors. Several scholars have provided evidence for this argument (Kraatz &

Block, 2008; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Reay & Hinings, 2005; Scott, 2008). However, to date,


empirical research on institutional complexity is limited (Kodeih & Greenwood, 2014) and

explanations about how and why some logics become more dominant and gain primacy over others

remain undertheorized (Thornton et al., 2012). As Meyer and Höllerer (2010: 1251) pointed out:

“Logics may peacefully coexist, compete, supersede each other, blend or hybridize or reach a

temporary ‘truce’”. The case of Alan Kurdi raises interesting questions in this context as we see an

apparent rapid shift in logics. Further, understanding of what factors impact which logic is or

becomes dominant must originate at the micro-level of interaction (Barley, 2008; Powell &

Colyvas, 2008). However, our understanding of the link between micro interactions and macro

effects remains nascent.

Powell and Colyvas (2008: 277) have highlighted that “Institutional logics are instantiated

in and carried by individuals through their actions, tools, and technologies” and called for a focus

on the micro-level of institutions to study institutional processes. Barley (2008) also emphasized

that institutional theory is based on micro-social concepts. In a similar way, other scholars have

called for theorists to take into account the “inhabited” nature of institutional processes (Hallett &

Ventresca, 2006). Gray et al. (2015) developed a process theory about how institutions develop

from “bottom-up” in interactions, thus also bringing the discursive element into focus. While

Kraatz and Block (2008) noted a lack of research on how local actors deal with institutional

complexity, recent research has been trying to illuminate how logics are constituted and used by

individuals “on the ground” (McPherson & Sauder, 2013: 167): “Developing a better

understanding of these micro-level instantiations is critical to the logics perspective because it is

here that logics are translated into action, action that either reinforces or reconstitutes the logics

themselves”.


We contend that the recent visual and emotional turns in organizational studies provide us

with an opportunity to access these “micro-level instantiations”. Although both the visual and

emotional dimensions have recently received some attention from institutional theorists, both areas

remain largely under-researched (Meyer et al., 2013; Voronov & Vince, 2012). We suggest that

the Alan Kurdi case provides us with an opportunity to examine the links between emotions and

visual discourse, and in so doing assess how micro-level institutional processes can have macro-

level effects.

The Emotional and Visual Turns

Emotions have been conceptualized as a key link between the micro- and macro-levels of

institutions and as possible triggers for institutional change (Creed et al., 2010; Creed et al., 2014;

Voronov, 2014). One of the distinguishing features of emotions is their ability to focus the attention

of individuals (Baumeister et al., 2007; De Sousa, 1987, Warren & Smith-Crowe, 2008). Based on

this, we contend that emotions can direct attention in ways resulting in the potential activation

and/or deactivation of particular logics. In this way, emotions can be conceptualized as a key link

between the micro- and macro-levels of institutional processes. This impact, we hold, is particularly

strong when emotions are transported via images.

A main feature of visual discourse is that images are perceived and processed very quickly

and present themselves immediately in full - compared to verbal text which presents itself more

sequentially (Doelker, 2002). Another distinguishing characteristic is that images have the potential

to both communicate and activate emotions (Doelker, 2002; Meyer et al., 2013). One way in which

visual discourse can elicit emotions is by creating an emotional connection between the represented

entity and the consumer of the image by triggering empathy (Konstantinidou, 2008). Based on this


we suggest that photographs like that of Alan Kurdi result in stronger emotional responses than

verbal texts are able to elicit.

Analysing the image of this drowned boy and its effect on discourse, we propose that it

might have triggered empathy as one quote of David Cameron suggests: “‘Anyone who saw those

pictures overnight could not help but be moved and, as a father, I felt deeply moved by the sight

of that young boy on a beach in Turkey’” (The Guardian 4 September, 2015; emphasis added).

Considering this, we conceptualize images as powerful carriers of emotions that hold the potential

to trigger reactions in individuals. The effect of these reactions depends on whether or not the

transported emotions are in line with the dominant institutional logic. In the former case, we

propose that the dominant logic will be reinforced; in the latter case, the visually evoked emotion

can cause a shift in attention that can in turn precipitate emphasis on an alternate institutional logic.

Methods

In line with theorising on discursive analysis (Thornton et al., 2012; Phillips et al., 2004;

Suddaby, 2011) we argue that alteration of discourse can indicate, as well as precipitate, a shift in

attention and logic. We therefore study the discourse on the migration crises before and after the

release of the image of Alan Kurdi and examine if and to what extent it might have changed.

The approach used by Lamin and Zaheer (2012) has inspired our chosen methods of data

collection and analyses. We code articles as either supportive of or opposed to a particular logic

according to how the article portrays the migration crisis. We combine a pattern inducing and a

pattern deducing approach. First, an inductive approach is applied to capture the prevalent logic by

coding articles as described above. Having identified the dominant logic, in a second step a pattern

deducing approach will be applied which consists of counting occurrences of particular vocabulary

in order to gain further insight on if and to what extent the discourse has changed over time. As


Phillips and Hardy (1997) (see also Hardy & Phillips, 1999) have shown in their work on the UK

and Canadian refugee systems, refugees are constituted through discursive activities at different

levels that ultimately shapes how they are perceived in society. Their work highlights the important

role of discursive activities for the individual fate of refugees. Data will be collected from major

newspapers in the UK.

Preliminary Findings

A preliminary screening of the data reveals that the discourse changed dramatically after

the release of the image and that different vocabulary was then used. This suggests that a change

in logics may have taken place. We provide a theoretical explanation for this phenomenon by

integrating the emotional and visual turns in institutional theory. We propose that the image of

Alan Kurdi triggered empathy that not only changed the discourse on the migration crisis, but also

had an institutional effect at a societal level. We argue that the discourse initially reinforced the

dominant logic, but that the image and subsequent discourse collectively undermined that logic

resulting in a new logic becoming dominant. Thus, our work not only sheds light on what factors

impact the dominance of one institutional logic over another, but also on the causes of

deinstitutionalization. In so doing, our paper also attends to one of the blind spots in institutional

theory more generally, namely how to link the macro- and micro-levels of institutions. Another

contribution of this paper rests in its conceptualization of visual images as powerful carriers of

emotions. This paper thus attends to recent calls for the need to pay close attention to the visual

turn in management studies (Meyer et al., 2013) while also providing insight into the role of

emotions in institutional change. Finally, we offer a theoretical explanation that helps to capture

the evolving impact of the migration crisis across Europe.


The Emergence of Institutional Voids: Managing the Permanence of Transient refugee

Camps

Marlen de la Chaux


Refugee camps are temporary spaces in which displaced populations wait until return to their place

of origin is safe again. Camps are characterized by the provision of humanitarian relief to refugees;

short-term planning cycles for camp management; and extensive restrictions to refugees’ freedom

of movement that prevent integration in the host country. However, today’s displaced spend an

average of nearly two decades in refugee camps (Crisp, 2003) and thus lead a semi-permanent

camp life, often characterized by boredom, violence and substance abuse (Stearns, 2011)

Nonetheless, the camps’ dominant norms, practices and rules continue to assume

transience: Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya has existed since 1997, yet planning and needs

assessment continue to be conducted in annual cycles. Zaatari camp in Jordan houses 80,000

refugees and is effectively the country’s fourth largest ‘city’, yet camp managers refrain from

referring to a ‘settlement’ or ‘town’ to avoid acknowledging the camps’ longevity. Moreover,

although most refugees have been living in Zaatari camp for nearly four years, it is illegal for

refugees to leave the camp at their leisure, take up employment or even build housing structures

other than the tents and containers that camp managers provide. This paper investigates how

refugees and camp managers such as United Nations (UN) agencies and international non-

governmental organizations (INGOs), experience and cope with living a semi-permanent life in a

transient space.

The literature on institutional voids has investigated contexts in which extant institutions

are insufficient in guiding actors’ behavior (Mair, Martí & Ventresca, 2012). Although the term


institutional void was initially employed to describe contexts lacking formal institutions (e.g., legal

systems, codes of conducts, and regulations) (Chakrabarty, 2009; Luo & Chung, 2013), recent

research study how institutional voids emerge from an over-abundance of institutions that creates

ambiguity regarding what constitutes acceptable norms and behaviors (Martí & Mair, 2006; Mair,

Martí & Ventresca, 2012). In addition, institutional voids may also arise when actors’ interests and

experiences contradict dominant laws, norms and practices (Webb, Ireland, Sirmon & Texas,

2009). The divergent experiences and assumptions associated with the longevity of refugee camps

thus also constitute an institutional void: refugees effectively spend decades living in an

environment that assumes that their stay is temporary. Although current research explains how

actors overcome institutional voids (Mair, Martí & Ventresca, 2012; Martí & Mair, 2006) we

currently know little about how institutional voids emerge. Our research is therefore guided by the

question: How do institutional voids emerge?

This paper identifies three antecedents to institutional voids that persist in refugee camps:

(i) paralysis; (ii) ambiguity, (iii) incongruence. We illustrate the three antecedents to voids and

how they interlace by tracing the emergence of refugee camp entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial

activity is illegal in refugee camps as running and owning a business implies that a refugees’ stay

in the camp will be somewhat permanent. Nonetheless, the majority of camp-based refugees are

involved in entrepreneurship.

In part, this refugee camp entrepreneurship is the result of institutional paralysis, i.e. extant

dominant institutions no longer mirror individuals’ experienced realities. Refugees spend decades

in the camps and especially camp-born refugees view the camp as their only home. In contrast,

camp managers and host communities continue to view the camps as temporary safe zones for the

displaced and uphold formal laws and regulations that prevent refugees from owning properties,


running businesses or building brick housing – in short, anything that would imply long-termism.

A journalist compares camp life to a prison: “Just like in prison, you receive your daily portion of

food and water and are asked to wait” (Abu Sarah, 2013).

As a result of paralyzed institutions, many refugees engage in entrepreneurial activity to

create meaning to their life otherwise spent waiting to leave the camp. Although illegal, camp

managers rarely sanction entrepreneurship and, what is more, members of the host community

foster refugee-led businesses through their supply and demand of goods to and from the camp. This

generates ambiguity regarding what constitutes acceptable, i.e. non-sanctioned, behavior. As

practices that promote understandings of the camp as semi-permanent go unsanctioned,

institutional ambiguity regarding the dominant assumptions, norms and practices associated with

the refugee camp arises.

Finally, institutional incongruence emerges as refugee camp entrepreneurship becomes a

wide spread practice among refugees. Entrepreneurial activity formally remains illegal in camps

and barriers to entrepreneurial activity such as lack of resources, capital, access to external markets

or information infrastructures indicate that the camps’ dominant institutions do not support

entrepreneurial activity. Nonetheless, various small innovative businesses and markets emerge

inside the camps (Werker, 2007; Cavaglieri, no date). Furthermore, refugee camp entrepreneurs

create their own norms and practices. A refugee in Zaatari, for example, explains how mosques

become platforms to advertise goods and services rather than signage on the shops: “Especially

mosques are a traditional way of disseminating information. Shops don’t advertise themselves,

often they are inside the tents and you wouldn’t know it walking past”. Refugee camp entrepreneurs

therefore generate incongruence between the semi-permanence implied in entrepreneurship and

the dominant camp rules and regulations that promote the camps’ temporariness.


This paper makes several contributions. To the literature on institutions, this paper nuances

the concept of institutional voids, by identifying three antecedents to institutional voids – paralysis,

ambiguity and incongruence – and explaining how the antecedents interlace, thereby preventing

actors from resolving or overcoming the institutional void. For policy-makers and practitioners,

this paper identifies opportunities to revisit extant camp management structures and practices.

Specifically, camp managers may alleviate refugees’ experienced disconnect between their semi-

permanent camp lives and the assumed transience of the camps by introducing refugee livelihood

programs such as cash-based aid programs that grant refugees greater autonomy within the camps;

broadening stakeholder engagement and involving refugees in camp management and planning;

and supporting employment creation initiatives as has happened in Dadaab camp where social

enterprises outsource small digital tasks to refugees with basic computer skills (Betts, Bloom &

Omata, 2013).


REFERENCES

Abu Sarah, A. (2013). ‘First person: Five things I learned in Syrian refugee camps’. National

Geographic Online, September 19. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130920-

syria-refugees-camps-war- children/.

Antal, A., Hutter, M. and Stark, D. (2015). Moments of Valuation: Explorin Sites of Dissonance.

Oxford: Oxford University Press

Barin Cruz, L., Aguilar Delgado, N., Leca, B., & Gond, J.-P. (2015). Institutional Resilience in

Extreme Operating Environments: The Role of Institutional Work. Business & Society: 1-47

Barley, S. R. (2008) “Coalface Institutionalism”, in: R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby & K.

Sahlin (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: 491-519. London: SAGE.

Barnett, M. (2011). Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism. New York: Cornell

University Press

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N. & Zhang, L. (2007) “How emotion shapes behavior:

Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation”, Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 11(2): 167-203.

Betts, A. and Collier, P. (2015). ‘Help Refugees Help Themselves’ Foreign Affairs. 94 (6). Pp. 84-

92

Betts, A., Bloom, L., & Omata, N. (2013). ‘Humanitarian innovation and refugee protection’.

Working Paper no. 85, Refugee Studies Centre, Oxford Department of International Development,

University of Oxford, UK.

Borton, J. (2004). The Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda. Humanitarian

Exchange. 26 (March). pp. 14-18

Bradt, D. A. (2009). Evidence-based decision-making in humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian

Practice Network - Overseas Development Institute 67: 1-24

Briner, R. B., Denyer, D., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Evidence-Based Management: Concept

Cleanup Time? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4): 19-32

Buchanan-Smith, M. (2003). How the Sphere Project Came into Being: A Case Study of Policy-

Making in the Humanitarian Aid Sector and the Relative Influence of Research. Working Paper

215. London: Overseas Development Institute

Burchell, S., Clubb, C., Hopwood, A.G., Hughes, J. and Nahapiet, J. (1980), “The roles of

accounting in organizations and society”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 5

No. 1, pp. 5-27

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130920-syria-refugees-camps-war-%20children/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130920-syria-refugees-camps-war-%20children/


Callon, M., Millo, Y., & Muniesa, F. (Eds.). (2007). Market devices. London: Wiley-Blackwell.

Cavaglieri, S. (No date). Livelihoods & micro-finance in refugee camps’. Working Paper,

Department of Economics, University of Roma Tre, Rome, Italy.

Chakrabarty, S. (2009). The influence of national culture and institutional voids on family

ownership of large firms : A country level empirical study. Journal of International Management,

15(1), 32–45.

Chenhall, R., et al. (2013). “Performance Measurement, Modes of Evaluation and the Development

of Compromising Accounts”. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38, pp.268–287.

Cetina, K. K., Schatzki, T. R., & von Savigny, E. (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory.

London: Routledge

Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (1980). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons and evaluation

Criteria. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 19(6): 418 -427

Creed, W. E. D., DeJordy, R. & Lok, J. (2010) “Being the change: Resolving institutional

contradiction through identity work”, Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1336-1364.

Creed, W. E. D., Hudson, B. A. , Okhuysen, G. O. & Smith-Crowe, K. (2014) “Swimming in a sea

of shame: incorporating emotion into explanations of institutional reproduction and change”,

Academy of Management Review, 39(3): 275-301.

Crisp, J. (2003). ‘No solution in sight: The problem of protracted refugee situations in Africa’.

Working Paper no. 68, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California-San

Diego, La Jolla, CA.

Czarniawska, B. (2009). A Theory of Organizing. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar

Publishing

Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (2007). Shadowing: and other techniques for doing fieldwork in modern

societies. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press DK

De Sousa, R. (1987) The rationality of emotion. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Doelker, C. (2002) Ein Bild ist mehr als ein Bild. Visuelle Kompetenz in der Multimedia-

Gesellschaft. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011). Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory.

Organization Science, 22(5): 1240-1253

Friedland, R. & Alford, R. R. (1991) “Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional

contradictions”, in: W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (eds.) The New Institutionalism in

Organizational Analysis: 232-263. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


Garud, R., Sanjay, J. and Tuertscher, P. (2008). “Incomplete by Design and Designing for

Incompleteness”. Organization Studies. 29. Pp. 351- 371

Gehman, J., Trevino, L. K., & Garud, R. (2013). Values work: A process study of the emergence

and performance of organizational values practices. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 84-

112

Gherardi, S. (2012). How to conduct a practice-based study: Problems and methods. Cheltenham:

Edward Elgar Publishing

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in

social analysis. London: The MacMillan Press Ltd

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge:

Polity Press`

Gkeredakis, E., Swan, J., Powell, J., Nicolini, D., Scarbrough, H., Roginski, C., Taylor-Phillips,

S., & Clarke, A. (2011). Mind the gap: understanding utilisation of evidence and policy in health

care management practice. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 25(3): 298-314

Gray, B., Purdy, J. M. & Ansari, S. (2015) “From Interactions to Institutions: Microprocesses of

Framing and Mechanisms for the Structuring of Institutional Fields”, Academy of Management

Review, 40(1): 115-143.

Hallett, T. & Ventresca, M. J. (2006) “Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and organizational

forms in Gouldner’s ‘patterns of industrial bureaucracy’”, Theory and Society, 35(2): 213-236.

Hardy, C. & Phillips, N. (1999) “No Joking Matter: Discursive Struggle in the Canadian Refugee

System”, Organization Studies, 20(1): 1-24.

Jarzabkowski, P. A., Lê, J. K., & Feldman, M. S. (2012). Toward a theory of coordinating: Creating

coordinating mechanisms in practice. Organization Science, 23(4): 907-927

Jones, H. (2012). Promoting evidence-based decision-making in development agencies. ODI

Background Note, 1(1): 1-6

Jordan, S., & Messner, M. (2012). Enabling control and the problem of incomplete performance

indicators. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(8), 544–564.

Kodeih, F. & Greenwood, R. (2014) “Responding to Institutional Complexity: The Role of

Identity”, Organization Studies, 35(1): 7-39.

Konstantinidou, C. (2008) “The spectacle of suffering and death: the photographic representation

of war in Greek newspapers”, Visual Communication, 7(2): 143-169.


Kornberger M., Jusesen L., Mouritsen J. and Koed Madsen A. (Eds.) (2015) Making things

valuable; Oxford University Press.

Kraatz, M. S. & Block, E. S. (2008) “Organizational Implications of Institutional Pluralism”, in:

R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby & K. Sahlin (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational

Institutionalism: 243-276. London: SAGE.

Latour, B. (2005), Reassembling the Social, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lamin, A. & Zaheer, S. (2012) “Wall Street vs. Main Street: Firm Strategies for Defending

Legitimacy and Their Impact on Different Stakeholders”, Organization Science, 23(1): 47-66.

Lamont, M. (2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review

of Sociology, 38, 201–221.

Locke, K. (1996). Rewriting the discovery of grounded theory after 25 years? Journal of

Management Inquiry, 5(3): 239-245

Luo, X. R., & Chung, C.-N. (2012). ‘Filling or Abusing the Institutional Void? Ownership and

Management Control of Public Family Businesses in an Emerging Market’. Organization Science,

24(2), 591–613.

Mair, J., Marti, I., & Ventresca, M. (2012). ‘Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: how

intermediaries work institutional voids’. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 819–850.

Martí, I., & Mair, J. (2006). ‘Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from

Bangladesh’. Working Paper, 3(636).

McPherson, C. M. & Sauder, M. (2013) “Logics in Action: Managing Institutional Complexity in

a Drug Court”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2): 165-196.

Meyer, R. & Höllerer, M. A. (2010) “Meaning structures in a contested issue field: a topographic

map of shareholder value in Austria”, Academy of Management Journal, 53(6): 1241-1262.

Meyer, R. E., Höllerer, M. A., Jancsary, D. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2013) “The Visual Dimension in

Organizing, Organization, and Organization Research: Core Ideas, Current Developments, and

Promising Avenues”, The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1): 489-555.

Meyer, J. & Rowan, B. (1977) “Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and

ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340-363.

Mintzberg, H. (2001). Managing exceptionally. Organization Science, 12(6): 759-771

Nicolini, D. (2011). Practice as the Site of Knowing: Insights from the Field of Telemedicine.

Organization Science, 22(3): 602-620.


Nicolini, D. (2013). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford

University Press

Okoth, D. (2012). IT entrepreneurs find surprise success in Kenya’s Dadaab refugee camps. The

Guardian, July 4. http://www.theguardian.com/global- development/2012/jul/04/entrepreneurs-

kenya-dadaab-refugee-camps . Accessed June 15, 2014.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for

studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4): 404-428

Orlikowski, W. J. (2010). Practice in research: phenomenon, perspective and philosophy. In D.

Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Strategy as Practice:

23-33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cambridge

Phillips, N. & Hardy, C. (1997) “Managing Multiple Identities: Discourse, Legitimacy and

Resources in the UK Refugee System”, Discourse and Organization, 4(2): 159-185.

Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B. & Hardy, C. (2004) “Discourse and Institutions”, The Academy of

Management Review, 29(4): 635-652.

Pollock, N., and D’Adderio, L. (2012). “Give a Two-By-Two Matrix and I will Create the Market:

Rankings, Graphic Visualizations and Sociomateriality. Accounting, Organizations and Society,

37, pp. 565-586.

Porges, M. (2014). ‘Fragile Sanctuary: Jordan Buckles under the Stress of Hosting Syrian

Refugees’ Foreign Affairs. Available Online from:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/jordan/2014-03-12/fragile-sanctuary

Powell, W. W. & Colyvas, J. A. (2008) “Microfoundations of Institutional Theory”, in: R.

Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby & K. Sahlin (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational

Institutionalism: 276-299. London: SAGE.

Quattrone, P. (2015a). “Governing Social Orders, Unfolding Rationality, and Jesuit Accounting

Practices: A Procedural Approach to Institutional Logics”. Administrative Science Quarterly. Pp.1-

35

Quattrone P. (2015b) Value in the age of doubt: Accounting as a maieutic machine. pp. 27 in

Kornberger M., Jusesen L., Mouritsen J. and Koed Madsen A. (Eds.) Making things valuable;

Oxford University Press.

Quattrone, P. (2009). Books to be practiced: memory, the power of the visual, and the success of

accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 34: 85–118.

Raffaelli, R., & Glynn, M. A. (2014). Turnkey or tailored? Relational pluralism, institutional

complexity, and the organizational adoption of more or less customized practices. Academy of

Management Journal, 57(2): 541-562

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/jordan/2014-03-12/fragile-sanctuary


Ramalingam, B. (2013). Aid at the Edge of Chaos: Rethinking International Cooperation in a

Complex World. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ramalingam, B. et al. (2009). ́Counting What Counts: Performance and Effectiveness in the

Humanitarian Sector, ALNAP 8th Review of Humanitarian Action. London: Overseas

Development Institute

Reay, T. & Hinings, C. R. (2005) “The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in

Alberta”, Organization Studies, 26(3): 351-384.

Reay, T., Berta, W., & Kohn, M. K. (2009). What's the Evidence on Evidence-Based Management?

Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4): 5-18

Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices a development in culturalist theorizing.

European journal of social theory, 5(2): 243-263

Rocha, L. (2001). ‘Adaptive Webs for Heterarchies with Diverse Communities of Users’. Paper

Presented at the conference From Intelligent Networks to the Global Brain: Evolutionary Social

Organization Through Knowledge Technology, Brussels, July 3-5.

Rousseau, D. M. (2006). ‘Is there such a thing as "evidence-based management"?’ Academy of

Management Review, 31(2): 256-269

Scott, W. R. (2008) Institutions and Organizations. Ideas, Interests, and Identities 3rd ed. London:

SAGE.

Scott, S. and Orlikowski, W. (2012). Reconfiguring Relations of Accountability: Materialization

of Social Media in the Travel Sector. Accounting, Organizations and Society 37. (pp. 26–40)

Sphere Project (2011). The Sphere Project Homepage. Retrieved January 27th, 2014 from:

http://www.sphereproject.org/resources/download-publications/?search=1&aid=none

Stark, D. (2009). The Sense of Dissonance: Accounts of Worth in Economic Life. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

Stearns, J. (2011). Dancing in the glory of monsters: The collapse of the Congo and the great war

of Africa. New York: Public Affairs.

Stones, R. (2005). Structuration theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Suddaby, R. (2011) “How Communication Institutionalizes: A Response to Lammers”,

Management Communication Quarterly, 25(1): 183-190.

Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W. & Lounsbury, M. (2012) The Institutional Logics Perspective. A New

Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


UNHCR (2015). ´Worldwide Displacement Hits All-time High as War and Persecution Increase`.

Available at:

http://www.unhcr.org/558193896.html (accessed November 12th, 2015).

UNHCR (2013). ´UNHCR Global Trends: War’s Human Cost`. Available at:

http://www.unhcr.org/5399a14f9.html (accessed November 14th, 2015).

Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. (2012). Strategy-as-practice: taking social practices seriously. The

Academy of Management Annals, 6(1): 285-336

Voronov, M. (2014) “Toward a toolkit for emotionalizing institutional theory”, Research on

Emotion in Organizations, 10: 167-196.

Voronov, M. & Vince, R. (2012) “Integrating emotions into the analysis of institutional work”,

Academy of Management Review, 37(1): 58-81.

Warren, D. E. & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008) “Deciding what’s right: The role of external sanctions

and embarrassment in shaping moral judgments in the workplace”, Research in Organizational

Behavior, 28: 81-105.

Webb, J. W., Ireland, R. D., Sirmon, D. G., & Texas, A. (2009). ‘You say illegal, I say legitimate:

Entrepreneurship in the informal economy’. Academy of Management Review, 34(3): 492–510.

Weeks, M. R. (2007). Organizing for disaster: Lessons from the military. Business Horizons, 50(6):

479-489

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social Psychology of Organizing. (2nd ed.). Reading, Ma: Addison-

Wesley.

Weick, K. E. (2004) ‘Rethinking organizational design’ in Managing as designing. R. J. Boland

and F. Collopy (eds), 36–53. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Werker, E. (2007). Refugee camp economies. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(3): 461–480.

Zanello, G., Fu, X., Mohnen, P., & Ventresca, M. (2015). The creation and diffusion of innovation

in developing countries: a systematic literature review. Journal of Economic Surveys

http://www.unhcr.org/558193896.html

http://www.unhcr.org/5399a14f9.html

Documents

Presenter Symposium ORGANIZING AND ADMINISTRATION IN ...€¦ · highest amount of refugees at any given point since World War II (UNHCR, 2015). The Syrian refugee crises alone has