Critical international relations and the impact agenda

How should critical International Relations (IR) scholars approach the ‘impact agenda’? While most have been quite resistant to it, I argue in this essay that critical IR should instead embrace the challenge of impact – and that both IR as a field and the impact agenda more broadly would gain greatly from it doing so. I make this case through three steps. I show, firstly, that critical IR has till now been very much at the impact agenda’s margins, and that this situation contrasts strikingly with its well-established importance within IR teaching and research. I argue, secondly, that critical IR scholars both could and should do more impact work – that the current political conjuncture demands it, that many of the standard objections to doing so are misplaced, and indeed that ‘critical’ modes of research are in some regards better suited than ‘problem-solving’ ones to generating meaningful change – and offer a series of recommended principles for undertaking critically-oriented impact and engagement work. But I also argue, thirdly, that critical social science holds important lessons for the impact agenda, and that future impact assessments need to take these lessons on board – especially if critical IR scholarship is to embrace impact more fully. Critical IR, I submit, should embrace impact; but at the same time, research councils and assessments could do with modifying their approach to it, including by embracing a more critical and political understanding of what impact is and how it is achieved

UN Peace operations and conflicting legitimacies

Analyses of UN peacekeeping increasingly consider legitimacy a key factor for success, conceiving of it as a resource that operations should seek and use in the pursuit of their goals. However, these analyses rarely break down legitimacy by source. Because the UN is an organization with multiple identities and duties however, different legitimacy sources—in particular output and procedural legitimacy—and the UN’s corresponding legitimation practices come into conflict in the context of peacekeeping. Drawing on a range of examples and a specific case of the UN mission in Congo, this article argues that looking at different legitimacy sources and linking them to the institutional identity of the UN is thus critical and it shows how the UN’s in contradictory legitimation practices can reduce overall legitimacy perceptions

Rogue Logics: Organization in the Grey Zone

This paper explores the concept of the ‘rogue’ through an examination of how the figure appears in business ethics and as the rogue trader. Reading the rogue trader through institutional logics and Jacques Derrida’s book Rogues, we suggest that the rogue is not on the dark side of organization so much as in an indeterminate grey zone, where the boundary between acceptable behaviour and misconduct is unclear. We further argue that this boundary is necessarily unclear as it is in the nature of organization, at least within capitalist trading systems, to push the boundaries of what is possible and acceptable. The rogue thus helps produce the boundaries of ethically acceptable organizational behaviour in the very act of transgressing them. The location-bound specificity of the rogue, as well as the symbolic process of naming an individual or a state a rogue finds a relevant correlate in the villain, as Derrida suggests. But what we call ‘rogue organization’ may be constitutive of organization per se. As such, there is a potential roguishness in organization that should be addressed when considering the dark side of ethics in organization studies

The standardization of organizational forms as a cropping-up process

This article looks at the way homogeneity and heterogeneity arise in the forms adopted by organizations. It is argued that under modern conditions a traditional diffusion model is not always very useful in helping us to understand such processes. As an alternative a "cropping-up" model of standardization is presented. This model is particularly apt for explaining the following types of situation: when a certain form appears simultaneously in organizations which have no contact with one another or a common transmitter; when knowledge of possible organizational forms is not a scarce resource: when common forms are invented locally in many organizations rather than resulting from the imitation of others; and when the organizations which adopt similar forms do not seem to share any other fundamental common attribute. The model is based on empirical studies of organizational reforms.Standardization organizational forms reform diffusion fashion