Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Emily Billo
Goucher College, USA
Alison Mountz
Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada
Abstract
In this paper we unpack how geographers have studied institutions, focusing specifically on institutional
ethnography, often called IE. Sociologist Dorothy Smith is widely credited with developing institutional
ethnography as an embodied feminist approach. Smith studies the experiences of women in daily life, and the
complex social relations in which these are embedded. Institutional ethnography offers the possibility to
study up to understand the differential effects of institutions within and beyond institutional spaces and
associated productions of subjectivities and material inequalities. We suggest that geographical scholarship
on institutions can be enhanced and, in turn, has much to contribute to the broader interdisciplinary field on
institutional ethnography, such as understandings of institutions that account for spatial differentiation. We
argue that IE holds potential to enrich geographical research not only about a multitude of kinds of institutions, but about the many structures, effects, and identities working through institutions as territorial
forces. In spite of recent interest by geographers, the broader literature on institutional ethnography remains
under-engaged and under-cited by human geographers. Critical of this lack of engagement, we suggest that it
has left a gap in geographical research on institutions. Our aim is to analyze and advance existing scholarship
and offer this article as a tool for geographers thinking about employing IE. We develop a typology, categorized by methodological approach, to highlight ethnographic approaches to institutions undertaken by
geographers.
Keywords
ethnography, everyday, institutional ethnography, institutions, studying up
I Placing IE in geography: A
necessarily incomplete genealogy
of disciplinary engagement with
institutions
Geographers have debated methods with which
to research institutions (Flowerdew, 1982; Del
Casino et al., 2000; Herbert, 2000) and epistemological frames through which to understand
them (Philo and Parr, 2000). We aim here to
situate geographers recent interests in institutions within a broader history within the discipline, without necessarily establishing direct
movement or causality between one moment
of institutional engagement and the next (as in
the genealogical tradition). Underlying shifts
in the discipline will be recognizable, including
humanism and managerialism of the 1960s and
1970s, the cultural and institutional turns of the
1980s and 1990s, and the influence of postmodern, poststructural, and feminist thought in the
1990s and 2000s. Geographers have examined
institutions in fits and starts over time, often
lacking the history of disciplinary engagement
and contemporary scholarship on institutions
thriving in other disciplines (e.g. Iskander,
2010; Rodriguez, 2010). The result is a fragmented history of engagement.
Our review begins in the 1960s and 1970s,
when geographers studying institutions were
largely managerialists who, influenced by behavioralist geographers, tended to critique the idea
of the institution as monolith and analyze the
role of different government institutions, their
effects on cities and populations, and their geographical patterns (Pahl, 1977; Flowerdew,
1982; Ley, 1983; Kariya, 1993; Philo and Parr,
2000: 515).
Humanist geographers challenged the work of
managerialists, examining how managers shape
social realities through the internal cultures of
organizations. Ley, for example, contested a
Weberian approach that conceptualized institutions as efficient and rational bodies with perfect
access to information (1983: 220). He observed
a lack of everyday empirical analysis (Ley,
1983: 220). This dearth of empirical evidence
and the failure to examine quotidian practices are
recurring themes in geographers approaches to
institutions. Such an inductive approach would
pay more attention to the everyday contexts out
of which organizational actions emerge and to
the meanings of events to organizational members who lie behind their initiatives and
responses (Ley, 1983: 225). As precursor to
institutional life and vice versa. This geographical imagination of the institution posits
boundaries as fluid in daily practice. Such an
understanding requires a method that holds
quotidian life as its main focus: ethnography.
Ethnography holds potential to address daily
empirical knowledge on institutions and often
reveals the unevenness of institutional practices
and effects. As the study of daily life, ethnography has been important to the discipline since
the early days of cultural geography. Duncan
and Duncan (2009) note that Carl Sauers
detailed observations of the landscape drawn
from interviews, archives, and observations
would today likely be considered ethnographic.
The method came fully into practice through
humanistic geographers (Ley, 1974) mapping
detailed observation of daily interactions
between individuals and their environment. The
recent surge in ethnography once again examines the cultural dimensions of daily work of
institutions (e.g. Herbert, 2000; Hyndman,
2000; Mountz, 2010; Belcher and Martin,
2013; Kuus, 2013; Delaney, 2014). Many ethnographies can be found among recent doctoral
dissertations, evidence of renewed interest
among a new generation of geographers (Ashutosh, 2010; Hiemstra, 2011; Houston, 2011;
Lindner, 2012; Santiago, 2013; VandeBerg,
2013). Institutional ethnographies have grown
in popularity as one incarnation of this trend
(e.g. Perreault, 2003a, 2003b; King, 2009; Larner and Laurie, 2010; Billo, 2015).
II What is institutional
ethnography?
Ethnography is the detailed study of everyday life,
the ethnographers tools participant-observation,
fieldnotes, and interviews (Emerson et al.,
1995). Crucially, ethnography involves more than
the conduct of interviews. Participant-observation
and archival analysis enable the ethnographer to
study how people interact and interpret meaning:
what people do as well as what they say
(Herbert, 2000: 552). This need to observe is crucial to the workings of institutions. While interviews lend insight into actors and operations of
institutions, participant-observation, fieldnotes,
and detailed archival study enable spatial analysis
and associated insights into power relations.
Where, for example, are different workers located
within a building and by social location? How are
embodiments and encounters gendered, racialized, classed, and sexualized? The ethnographer
unravels patterns of behavior and interaction,
categories of identification, modes of management, exercises in power and interpretation in
everyday life.
Ethnographic approaches to institutions have
been popular since anthropologist Laura Nader
published a seminal piece in 1972 where she
argued that anthropologists study up in order
to better understand how institutions structure
daily life. She suggested that through this effort,
anthropologists could expand analyses beyond
those marginalized peoples upon whom they
had built the discipline. She emphasized how
little most people knew about bureaucracies and
organizations that had lasting material effects
on them (1972: 294). She argued that people
should have access to institutions and knowledge about how they function:
A democratic framework implies that citizens
should have access to decision-makers, institutions of government, and so on. This implies that
citizens need to know something about major
institutions, government or otherwise, that affect
their lives. (Nader, 1972: 294).
the everyday. Her approach to institutional ethnography begins with situated experiences of
women in daily life, then explores relations in
which these experiences are embedded: a complex of interactions between individuals, institutions, and society. Smith argues that sociologys
ways of knowing the world operate within the
framework of dominant institutions that devalue
women, differentially positioned by class,
race, and other axes of difference. Social relations engender relations of the ruling that
guide, control, coordinate and regulate societies.
Smith developed this approach to create a
sociology for women, to explore how women
are organized and determined by social processes that extend beyond their immediate
everyday worlds (Smith, 1987: 152). For DeVault
(2006: 295), ruling relations function not simply
as heuristic device, but closely connect the
contemporary everyday with historic, capitalist
relations that privilege certain understandings
of motherhood and women over others. These
relations are represented visually in feminist
geographer Isabel Dycks (1988) diagram in
Figure 1.
In feminist approaches to institutional ethnography, these processes are constructions of
text-based methodologies and practices of formal organization (Smith, 1987: 1523; 2006).
Participantobservation
p
Interviews
p
p
p
p
p
p
Archival or
textual
p
10
2. Time on the
inside
3. Getting at the
inside:
interviews
with
organizational
actors
4. Influencing life
on the outside
5. Event
ethnography
Types of
institutions
studied
Geographical
conceptualization
of the institution
Authors8
Following actors,
participantobservation,
interviews
Enforcement
Transnational,
Herbert (1997, 2000),
agencies, CSR,
translocal,
Hyndman (2000),
health and
institution that
Nevins (2002), Larner
humanitarian
produces
and Laurie (2010),
agencies
territoriality,
Wolford (2010b),
people who cross
Moran et al. (2012,
thresholds
2013), Billo (2012, 2015)
ParticipantAsylums,
More attention to
Kariya (1993), Hyndman
observation,
bureaucracies
the rhythms of
(1996, 2000), Parr
interviews
interior
(2000), Mountz (2010),
inside the
institutions
Houston (2011), Moran,
institution (a
spaces, observing
Gill, and Conlon (2013),
specific place)
roles and
Vandeburg (2013),
interactions
Gilman (2014)
Interviews,
Development,
Interviews may take Perreault (2003a, 2003b),
discourse
governmental
place inside or
Bebbington et al. (2004),
analysis
and nonoutside the
King (2009), Peck and
governmental
institution
Theodore (2010),
agencies
Wolford (2010a),
Houston (2011), Grove
(2013)
ParticipantGovernmental
Constituted by
Dyck (1988, 1997),
observation and
and nonpeople once
Hiemstra (2011),
interviews,
governmental
inside, now on
Bhungalia (2013),
textual analysis
agencies
the outside
Moran, Piacentini, and
from outside of
Pallot (2013)
the institution
Short-term
Development,
Fleeting temporal
Brosius and Campbell
participantenvironmental
and spatial
(2010), Corson and
observation of
events where
dimensions
McDonald (2012),
key events
policy is
Suarez and Corson
developed
(2013)
involved riding with police officers to understand how constructions of space and renderings
of the boundaries of neighborhoods enacted violence on residents. Like Herbert, Nevins (2002)
did ride-alongs with US border patrol along the
Mexico-US border to understand how readings
of the landscape and daily transgressions therein
enabled authorities to enact racialized violence
that built on historical dispossession in the
region. Although Herbert, Nevins, and others
(e.g. Hiemstra, 2011; Bhungalia, 2013) do not
label their work institutional ethnography, we
find these to be contemporary and ethnographically rich accounts of institutions located along
borders and carrying out bordering processes
beyond office walls. Other geographers have conducted research that we find to be important to the
development of ethnography in the discipline, if
not labeled as institutional ethnography, including Andersons (1991) and Houstons (2011)
work on city government and Schuurmans
(2008) innovative database ethnographies.
The second approach, time on the inside,
overlaps with the first, but has the researcher
placing more emphasis on dwelling in the
offices of the institution, and particularly in
the bureaucracy. Whereas Herbert (1997) and
Nevins (2002) spent more time in the field
following actors in their work outside of the
office (with occasional visits to the field beyond
office), for example, Mountz (2010) and VandeBerg (2013) spent more time studying daily
work within bureaucratic offices of federal and
UN agencies (with occasional visits to beyond).
Importantly, both of these first two categories
involved participant-observation, which lent
insights into the daily life of institutional spaces,
whether in the office or the field. While time on
the inside reveals much about the operation of
power within the institution, less time is generally spent beyond the institution looking at institutional effects. This may relate to the topic
itself, such as the difficulty of pursuing people
involved in piracy (VandeBerg, 2013) or human
smuggling at sea (Mountz, 2010).
11
12
perhaps the most common approach among geographers identifying their work as institutional
ethnography over the last ten years. This
approach relies less on participant-observation,
and more heavily on analysis of interviews and
documents to access the institutional structure,
sometimes characterized as a black box (Bebbington et al., 2004: 37). In these studies, the
researcher is usually located outside of the institution and accesses information about the institution by conducting interviews and corresponding
with institutional actors or accessing discourses
of those on the inside through reports and publications (Perreault, 2003a, 2003b; Goldman,
2004, 2005; King, 2009; Wolford, 2010a).4
Analysis may also examine how institutional
discourses travel into the world beyond the
institution (Bebbington et al., 2004). These
studies have tended to adopt more bounded
notions of the institution with more clearly
defined populations, policies, and cultures
(e.g. Goldman, 2004; 2005; Lewis and Mosse,
2006; King, 2009) and have drawn on discourse
and debates among elites (e.g. Bebbington
et al., 2004) to understand how institutions and
individual actors within them shape development (e.g. Goldman 2004, 2005).
Perreault (2003a, 2003b), for example, draws
on interviews with key informants to examine
how ethnicity, territory, and identity intersect
in an indigenous Kichwa organization in Ecuador, producing a discourse through which indigenous peoples participate in development
processes. His analysis focuses on the ways in
which indigenous organizations resist, refract,
and at times reproduce dominant narratives of
development, modernization, and citizenship
(Perreault, 2003a: 586). Perreault (2003a: 602)
aims to uncover the organizations political strategies to contest and negotiate processes of
development and social transformation. King
(2009) analyzes the centrality of a neoliberal
commercialization discourse in a South African
conservation organization, while Goldman
(2004, 2005) focuses on the production of the
In this approach, the embodiment and positionality of researchers is not the starting point. Instead,
researchers examine the discourses and players at
work within a powerful institution and struggles
over knowledge production among them. They
accomplish this through examination of texts
rather than the social locations of their authors.
These studies did not involve participantobservation in the form of following actors or
spending time on the inside, but tended to involve
the conduct of interviews with employees both
within and beyond institutional spaces. As Kuus
(2013) argues, this limitation may reflect the challenge of actually conducting ethnographic study
of policy issues.5 Yet data drawn from interviews
without the insights of participant-observation
limit the claims a study can make to understand
and interpret daily life in Geertzs (1973) terms:
detailed-oriented thick description.
In contrast, anthropologist Diane Nelson
(1999) makes related arguments in her ethnography of the state, studying representations
of indigenous and state identities in Guatemala
with a distinct approach. She posits the state is
imagined and lived through multiple bodies
politic of Mayan women, rooted in manipulation and violence tied to indigenous rights and
nation-building. She operates not only within a
distinct discipline, but with a distinct set of
epistemological frameworks from development
ethnographies: feminist, postmodern, and poststructural approaches. The result is a more dispersed understanding of institutions and their
embeddedness in daily life. Sawyer (2001,
2004), also an anthropologist, examines the daily
social and environmental consequences of
increased demand for oil via indigenous mobilizations in Ecuador. She employs participantobservation and interviews to explore social
relationships between an indigenous organization, multinational oil companies, and the state
that produce indigenous opposition to economic
globalization in its neoliberal guise (Sawyer,
2004: 7). She focuses specifically on the power
inequalities that emerge in this terrain of struggle over identities, territories, and relations
as indigenous peoples sought recognition and
rights in a plurinational Ecuadorian state (2004:
222). In these analyses, people themselves
embody, inhabit, and shape institutional structures at the same time that they are shaped by
them.
13
14
bringing policy and practice networks into coherent structures (Delaney, 2014: 19). These
approaches render more dispersed ethnographic
mappings of institutions that could draw from
and advance practices of institutional ethnography. They also share thematic interests, such as
advancing understandings of neoliberalism.
Our typology uncovers distinctions in the
methodological approach and epistemology and
ontology of institutions, with spatial differences
tied to ethnographic methods employed by
researchers. We found that studies that either
omit participant-observation as a method or
do not draw on these data in their analyses fail
to observe the influences and embeddedness
of the institution in everyday life. Participantobservation is attentive to emotion, subjectivity,
power struggles, resistance, and proximity of
the institution. IE is about accessing the everyday, as is ethnography generally. We still
have much to learn from anthropologists such
as Nelson, who is indiscriminate in engaging
ephemera collected in daily life. Chance
encounters, t-shirt slogans, cartoons, conversations all become locations where the institution, its effects and productive capacity are
readily evident. The result is Clifford Geertzs
(1973) thick description of daily life. This
more textured view of an institution differs from
a more fixed notion of the institution whose politics, projects, subjects, and discourses are
accessed primarily through interviews in other
words, the ways that institutional subjects or
employees narrate the institution. The latter
cannot readily account for the sociospatial differences in power operating within and across
the daily productions of an institution. Institutional formation and operation across center
and periphery lead to differential outcomes of
discourse and practice, with unequal impacts
and effects. More sustained, critical engagement with heterogeneous and interdisciplinary
approaches to institutional ethnography will
improve understandings of institutions within
and beyond the discipline of geography.
15
16
rather than focus solely on narrowly defined corporate projects labeled CSR, IE seeks to understand the relationships that form within CSR
programs and expand well beyond the local indigenous communities, raising questions about
indigenous citizenship and about how the corporate and philanthropic come together to produce
subjectivities in extractive industries (Billo,
2012).
Scholars have argued that prisons are not
what Goffman (1961) labeled the total institution: enclosed facilities that contain everything
and everyone therein (Moran et al., 2013: 110
12). Rather, they can be conceptualized as more
fluid, transcarceral entities (Moran et al.,
2013). Although prisons immobilize and contain those imprisoned, they have surprisingly
permeable boundaries. Many material things
move across prison walls: food, supplies, medical services, information, capital, paperwork,
statistics, workers, visitors, and detainees themselves. This movement proves helpful in studying prisons and detention facilities where people
are held; these are difficult sites for researchers
to access and where researcher access can put
vulnerable populations at further risk. Penal
institutions are therefore highly suited to study
through institutional ethnography in Smiths
tradition. IE opens the institution to research
in ways that do not necessarily require physical
access. Interviews and participant-observation
may fruitfully be conducted with workers, former detainees, and visitors such as family,
friends, and lawyers. This opens a broader landscape through which to understand the prison.
Focusing on what happens not only within but
across boundaries also fosters research on sensitive topics and vulnerable populations in relatively safe ways for those institutionalized.
Conversely, research premised on entry into
prisons would be riskier for participants and
more likely prone to failure should access not
be granted.
Feminist approaches to studying imprisonment have fruitfully pursued more dispersed
understandings of the social relations of imprisonment with exciting outcomes. Mary Bosworth (2005), for example, conducted research
on imprisonment and co-authored findings with
four prisoners who reflected on the experience.
The result is a situated example of, as well as a
call for, dialogue about research across prison
walls (2005: 250). The authors aim to destabilize power relations and boundaries between
researcher and researched, make clear the
fundamentally affective nature of qualitative
research and show how emotions motivate participants in research and, in so doing, that prisoners like researchers are individuals with
desires and emotions (2005: 251). Bosworth and
co-authors bring to our discussion the alternative media and kinds of texts that can be part
of IE, such as the role of letters, their potential
to engage a broad emotional register through
their play with time and space beyond and
within the institution (as in the daily nature of
mail call woven into the slow movement of
mail). In so doing, they disrupt boundaries
between inside and outside of prison and
research project, and what counts as personal
and professional interaction. Similarly, Moran
and co-authors (Moran et al., 2013) conceptualize Russian prisons as mobile, embodied
and transformative transcarceral spaces that
permeate prison walls. By recasting research
as cooperation and intimacy, such approaches
destabilize ownership of research agendas
and outcomes and disrupt masculinist notions
of penetrating institutions, while simultaneously reconfiguring geographical understandings of institutions. These approaches have
tended to be feminist, premised on the project
of analyzing womens experiences (e.g. Dyck,
1997; Bosworth, 2005; Moran et al., 2013).
IV Conclusions
As we have shown in our typology and accompanying discussion, geographers have practiced
institutional ethnography in a variety of ways.
17
18
Acknowledgements
References
Anderson K (1991) Vancouvers Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 18751980. Montreal: McGillQueens University Press.
Ashutosh A (2010) Crossing Streets, Crossing Nations:
South Asian Transnational Identities in Toronto.
PhD thesis, Department of Geography, Syracuse
University.
Bebbington A, Guggenheim S, Olson E and Woolcock M
(2004) Exploring social capital debates at the World
Bank. Journal of Development Studies 40(5): 3364.
Bebbington A, Guggenheim S, Olson E and Woolcock M
(2006) The Search for Empowerment: Social Capital as
Idea and Practice at the World Bank. Boulder: Kumarian Press.
Belcher O and Martin LL (2013) Ethnographies of closed
doors: Conceptualising openness and closure in US
immigration and military institutions. Area 45(4):
403410.
Bhungalia L (2013) From the American People: Aid,
Counterinsurgency, and the U.S. National Security
State in Palestine. PhD thesis, Department of Geography, Syracuse University.
Billo E (2012) Competing Sovereignties: Corporate Social
Responsibility, Indigenous Subjectivity, and Ecuador.
PhD thesis, Department of Geography, Syracuse
University.
Billo E (2015) Sovereignty and subterranean resources: An
institutional ethnography of Repsols corporate social
responsibility programs in Ecuador. Geoforum. DOI:
10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.021.
Bosworth M (2005) Doing prison research: Views from
inside. Qualitative Inquiry 11(2): 249264.
Brosius P and Campbell L (2010) Collaborative event ethnography: Conservation and development trade-offs at
the fourth World Conservation Congress. Conservation
and Society 8(4): 245255.
Burawoy M, Blum J, George S, Gille Z, Gowan T, Haney
Riain S and Thayer M
L, Klawiter M, Lopez S, O
(2000) Global Ethnography: Forces, Connections, and
Imaginations in a Postmodern World. Berkeley and
Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Campbell M and Gregor F (2004) Mapping Social Relations: A Primer in Doing Institutional Ethnography.
Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Colloredo-Mansfeld R (2002) Understanding competition in artisan economies. Current Anthropology
43(1): 113137.
Notes
1. Del Casino and co-authors (2000) suggest few differences between institutions and organizations, both
sites of a coalescing of structural relations that
emerge from innovation or habituation of actors
(2000: 525).
2. This position is not unique to IE, but central to feminist
approaches to ethnography and methods more broadly
(cf. McDowell, 1992; Moss, 2002).
3. VandeBerg changed her name to Gilmer between publication of her dissertation and book.
4. We note that Wolford (2010b) used participantobservation extensively in her work with Brazils Landless Peoples Movement (MST). While an ethnography
of a social movement, she does not characterize this
work as institutional ethnography.
5. Kuus (2013: 116) distinguishes further between study
of conceptions of policy in the offices of policymakers
and the effects of those policies in other sites.
6. VandeBerg (2013) creates and analyzes an archive of
some 200 media stories, which are about if not of the
institution she studies.
7. Note that there is overlap across the five approaches
delineated in this typology.
8. Our aim in this figure is to create a typology and provide examples of scholarship that demonstrate these
categories. We do not claim to represent the fullness
or complexity of what these studies actually do and
find.
19
Foucault M (1970) The Order of Things: An Archaeology
of Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault M (1991) Governmentality. In: Burchell G, Gordon C and Miller P (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies
in Governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, pp. 87104.
Foucault M (1995) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the
Prison. New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault M (1997) Society Must be Defended: Lectures
at the Colle`ge de France, 19751976. New York: St.
Martins Press.
Geertz C (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected
Essays. New York: Basic Books.
Gibson-Graham JK (1996) The End of Capitalism (as We
Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline
of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Gilmer B (2014) Political Geographies of Piracy: Constructing Threats and Containing Bodies in Somalia.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goffman E (1961) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation
of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York:
Anchor Books.
Goldman M (2004) Ecogovernmentality and other transnational practices of a green World Bank. In: Peet R and
Watts M (eds) Liberation Ecologies: Environment,
Development, Social Movements. London: Routledge,
pp. 153177.
Goldman M (2005) Imperial Nature: The World Bank and
Struggles for Social Justice in the Age of Globalization.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Grove K (2013) From emergency management to managing emergence: A genealogy of disaster management in
Jamaica. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103(3): 570588.
Gupta A (1995) Blurred boundaries: The discourse of corruption, the culture of politics, and the imagined state.
American Ethnologist 22(2): 375402.
Hansen TB and Stepputat F (2001) Introduction: States of
imagination. In: Hansen TB and Stepputat F (eds)
States of Imagination: Ethnographic Explorations of
the Postcolonial State. Durham and London: Duke
University Press, pp. 138.
Hart G (2004) Geography and development: Critical ethnographies. Progress in Human Geography 28(1):
91100.
20
Herbert S (1997) Policing Space: Territoriality and the
Los Angeles Police Department. London and Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Herbert S (2000) For ethnography. Progress in Human
Geography 24(4): 550568.
Heyman J (1995) Putting power in the anthropology of
bureaucracy: The Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Mexico-United States border. Current
Anthropology 36(2): 261287.
Hiemstra N (2011) The View from Ecuador: Security, Insecurity, and Chaotic Geographies of U.S. Migrant
Detention and Deportation. PhD thesis, Department
of Geography, Syracuse University.
Houston S (2011) Ethnography of the City: Creativity,
Sustainability, and Social Justice in Seattle, Washington. PhD thesis, Department of Geography, Syracuse
University.
Hyndman J (1996) Culture, Gender, & Power in United
Nations Refugee Camps: The Case of Somali Refugees
in Kenya. PhD thesis, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia.
Hyndman J (2000) Managing Displacement. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Iskander N (2010) Creative State: Forty Years of Migration and Development Policy in Morocco and Mexico.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Jackson P (1989) Maps of Meaning. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Jessop B (2001) Institutional re(turns) and the strategicrelational approach. Environment and Planning A 33:
12131235.
Kariya P (1993) The Department of Indian Affairs and
northern development: The culture-building process
within an institution. In: Duncan J and Ley D (eds)
Place/Culture/Representation. London and New York:
Routledge, pp. 187204.
Katz C (1996) The expeditions of conjurers: Ethnography,
power, and pretense. In: Wolf D (ed.) Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork. Boulder: Westview Press, pp.
170184.
King B (2009) Commercializing conservation in South
Africa. Environment and Planning A 41(2): 407424.
Kuus M (2013) Foreign policy and ethnography: A sceptical intervention. Geopolitics 18(1): 115131.
Larner W and Laurie N (2010) Travelling technocrats,
embodied knowledges: Globalising privatization in telecoms and water. Geoforum 41: 218226.
Lewis D and Mosse D (eds) (2006) Development Brokers
and Translators. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.
21
Pratt G (2000) Research performances. Environment and
Planning D, Society & Space 18(5): 639651.
Rodriguez R (2010) Migrants for Export: How the Philippine State Brokers Labor to the World. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Rutherford S (2007) Green governmentality: Insights and
opportunities in the study of natures rule. Progress
in Human Geography 31(3): 291307.
Sadler D and Lloyd S (2009) Neo-liberalising corporate
social responsibility: A political economy of corporate
citizenship. Geoforum 40: 613622.
Santiago L (2013) Spaces of Expertise and Geographies
of Ethics: The International Recruitment and Migration of Health Workers. PhD thesis, Department of
Geography, University of British Columbia.
Sawyer S (2001) Fictions of sovereignty: Of prosthetic
petro-capitalism, neoliberal states, and phantom-like
citizens in Ecuador. The Journal of Latin American
Anthropology 6(1): 156197.
Sawyer S (2004) Crude Chronicles: Indigenous Politics,
Multinational Oil, and Neoliberalism in Ecuador. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Schoenberger E (1997) The Cultural Crisis of the Firm.
Cambridge: Blackwell.
Schuurman N (2008) Database ethnographies using social
science methodologies to enhance data analysis and
interpretation. Geography Compass 2(5): 15291548.
Sharma A and Gupta A (eds) (2006) Anthropology of the
State: A Reader. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Smith D (1987) The Everyday World as a Problematic: A
Feminist Sociology. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Smith D (2006) Introduction. In: Smith D, Campbell M,
Devault M and Diamond T (eds) Institutional Ethnography as Practice. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield,
pp. 111.
Stacey J (1988) Can there be a feminist ethnography?
Womens Studies International Forum 11(1): 2127.
Suarez D and Corson C (2013) Seizing center stage: Ecosystem services, live, at the Convention on Biological
Diversity! Human Geography 15(1): 6479.
The Economist (2008) Just good business: A special report
on corporate social responsibility. Jan 1925 (386):
8563.
VandeBerg BL (2013) Securitizing Piracy: Development,
Security and the Containment of Piracy off the Coast
of Somalia. PhD thesis, Department of Geography,
University of Toronto.
22
Visweswaran K (1994) Fictions of Feminist Ethnography.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Wainwright J (2008) Decolonizing Development: Colonial
Power and the Maya. Malden: Blackwell.
Watts M (2001) Development ethnographies. Ethnography 2(2): 283300.
Watts M (2002) Alternative modern-development as cultural geography. In: Anderson K, Domosh N, Pile S and
Thrift N (eds) The Handbook of Cultural Geography.
London: SAGE, pp. 433454.
Watts M (2005) Righteous Oil?: Human rights, the
oil complex and corporate social responsibility.