Band 2, Heft 3

If an event happens in the woods, and nobody responds to it, is it a disruption? In this paper, we address a gap in the organizational sociology literature about how events are constructed as “institutional disruptions” in institutionally plural fields. We integrate the disconnected literatures of sensemaking/sensegiving and institutional pluralism to argue that institutional disruptions in institutionally plural fields are not coterminous with exogenous events, but rather are the result of a process of fieldwide sensemaking and sensegiving mediated by intermediary organizations. We use the American higher education community’s response to the Trump administration’s 2017 ‘travel ban’ as a paradigmatic example that illuminates these dynamics with some clarity. In particular, we illuminate the relationships between conditions of institutional pluralism, extra-field events, the social construction of meaning within fields, the role of intermediary organizations, and the nature of organizational actions in response. Emerging from our theoretical exploration, we offer implications and avenues for future research for organizational sociologists. Collectively, our theorizing opens the door for scholars to re-examine previously taken-for-granted assumptions about disruptions and better theorize the earliest moments of institutional change.

Based on an ethnography of work in a high-security prison, this article explores how safety practitioners develop specialised sensing skills through close engagement with their socio-material work environment and how they use these skills in constructing their understandings of what is going on in everyday work. The results make visible the potential role of the senses in how workers keep systems running, how they maintain safety in situations where quick reactions are needed and for the fast transition to more deliberate forms of sensemaking for early intervention. However, despite the importance prison officers ascribed to the use of the senses for their ability to work proactively, certain technologies seemed to reduce access to sensory inputs and thereby the ability to notice weak signals. This indicate challenges regarding embodied and tacit safety knowledge when more visible representations of safety are implemented. The article aims to contribute to a theoretical framework for understanding the role of senses in safety work through the concept of sensemaking as an embodied, socio-material process.

Against the background of a growing interest in the resurgence of craft work, this article examines the organizational conditions that characterize craft-based production in contemporary society and how they help to facilitate craft resurgence. The paper identifies three organizational conditions of contemporary craft-based production, relating to the mass market, producing by means of flexible specialization, and using infrastructures. By applying a historical lens, I argue that these organizational conditions have formed into a particular way of organizing craft-based production which is attuned to local and temporal specificities. Therefore, this study builds on a complementary, symbiotic notion of craft which considers industrial manufacture, serial production and digital technologies to be constitutive of craft making. By offering an alternative conceptual framework to grasp the resurgence of craft, this article contributes to the understanding of organizational resilience.

How is integration organized in practice, and what role do hybrids play in such practices? Based on fieldwork on two integration support initiatives for recent refugees in one of Sweden’s largest cities, this paper critically engages these questions, focusing in particular on integration as a multi-directional, ambiguous process that is shaped by the intervention of a great many agents. In line with previous research, we conclude that practices of integration require collaboration between many humans and non-humans, while at the same time we question many of the assumptions about who should collaborate with whom and who should receive support if the integration is to succeed. We also discovered that “integration” is a kind of boundary word, which is translated differently by different actors, but nevertheless facilitates various forms of collaboration and coordination. Some see it as a step toward assimilation, others as a step toward hybridization. If, as is claimed by many scholars, hybridization is an unavoidable result of modernization, it will most likely prevail.