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
John Amis
University of Edinburgh Business School
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, UK
Discussant:
Jerry Davis
University of Michigan Business School
University of Michigan
United States
Organizers:
Marian Gatzweiler
University of Edinburgh Business School
University of Edinburgh
UK
John Amis
University of Edinburgh Business School
University of Edinburgh
UK
Session Chair:
Royston Greenwood
Alberta School of Business
University of Alberta
Canada
2 Submission Number: 16699
The Emergence of Institutional Voids: Managing the Permanence of Transient Refugee
Camps
Marlen de la Chaux
Judge Business School
University of Cambridge
Cambridge, UK
On the Design and Practice of Heterarchical Accounts: A Case Study of Humanitarian
Performance Evaluation in a Large Scale Refugee Camp
Marian Gatzweiler
University of Edinburgh Business School
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, UK
The adoption of evidence in a humanitarian emergency organization:
A practice repertoire perspective
Corinna Frey
Judge Business School
University of Cambridge
Cambridge, UK
Michael Barrett
Judge Business School
University of Cambridge
Trumpington St
Cambridge, CB2 1AG
Potential Sponsor Divisions: Organization and Management Theory, Social Issues in
Management and Public and Non-Profit Management Divisions
3 Submission Number: 16699
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
4 Submission Number: 16699
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
5 Submission Number: 16699
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
6 Submission Number: 16699
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
7 Submission Number: 16699
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
8 Submission Number: 16699
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.
9 Submission Number: 16699
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
10 Submission Number: 16699
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
11 Submission Number: 16699
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.
12 Submission Number: 16699
INDIVIDUAL PAPER ABSTRACTS
The adoption of evidence in a humanitarian emergency organization:
A practice repertoire perspective
Corinna Frey & Michael Barrett
University of Cambridge
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,
13 Submission Number: 16699
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
14 Submission Number: 16699
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
15 Submission Number: 16699
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
16 Submission Number: 16699
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.
17 Submission Number: 16699
On the Design and Practice of Heterarchical Accounts:
A Case Study of Humanitarian Performance Evaluation in a Large Scale Refugee Camp
Marian Konstantin Gatzweiler
University of Edinburgh
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
18 Submission Number: 16699
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
19 Submission Number: 16699
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
20 Submission Number: 16699
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
21 Submission Number: 16699
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).
22 Submission Number: 16699
The migration crisis and institutional complexity – bringing the emotional and visual
dimensions into focus
Janina Reich & John Amis
University of Edinburgh
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,
23 Submission Number: 16699
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”.
24 Submission Number: 16699
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
25 Submission Number: 16699
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
26 Submission Number: 16699
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.
27 Submission Number: 16699
The Emergence of Institutional Voids: Managing the Permanence of Transient refugee
Camps
Marlen de la Chaux
University of Cambridge
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
28 Submission Number: 16699
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,
29 Submission Number: 16699
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.
30 Submission Number: 16699
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).
31 Submission Number: 16699
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
32 Submission Number: 16699
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.
33 Submission Number: 16699
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.
34 Submission Number: 16699
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.
35 Submission Number: 16699
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
36 Submission Number: 16699
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.
37 Submission Number: 16699
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