Accounting for crisis: the power of ambiguity in the management of humanitarian emergencies

A defining feature of humanitarian crises is their unpredictable nature, making them interesting sites to analyse how accounting systems can facilitate engagement with the unexpected. This thesis explores the question of how evaluation systems can be designed and practiced to engage with the complexities of humanitarian crisis settings, in which the potential for disastrous errors is overwhelming. Informed by empirical research on the management practices in a large-scale refugee camp, the study investigates principles and tactics that allow humanitarian evaluation systems to make a resource of the inevitable ambiguity and incompleteness that define their contexts. In doing so, the thesis draws from and further develops the concept of heterarchy, defined as ‘governance through difference’, and shows how it provides promising insights for accounting research. To explain how evaluation systems can become performable in the dynamic humanitarian environments, the study theorizes four interlinked principles that emerge from the empirical findings. These principles are: (1) in-built tensions between evaluation dimensions; (2) open and participatory design; (3) relational value and incompleteness; and (4) enacting minimalist control through a community of practitioners. In doing so, the study makes three contributions. Firstly, the study contributes to the accounting literature on the enabling role of ambiguity by theorizing how evaluation systems can foster approaches and techniques that embrace ambiguity as a resource to engage with complex settings. Secondly, it further develops the notion of heterarchy by explicating how heterarchical tensions can become productive without leading to chaos and by theorizing additional principles that are necessary to sustain heterarchies in an organized fashion. Thirdly, departing from the emerging literature on humanitarian crises that primarily focuses on how accounting systems can be used to normalize and control disaster settings, the thesis advances understanding of how accounting technologies can serve as anomalizing devices for the adaptive management of crises

No end in sight:How regimes form barriers to addressing the wicked problem of displacement

Wicked problems are complex and dispersed challenges that go beyond the capacity of individual organizations and require a response by multiple actors, often in the form of transnational regimes. While research on regimes has provided insights into such collective responses, less is known about how such regimes may form barriers that hinder and block appropriate responses to addressing wicked problems. Exploring the problematic role of regime-level responses is timely given that many of today’s wicked problems are far from being alleviated and in many instances appear instead to be intensifying. We draw from complementary insights of regime theory and research on institutional barriers to explore our research question: How do regimes form barriers to addressing wicked problems, and which mechanisms sustain such barriers? We explore this question with a longitudinal case study of the transnational regime for refugee protection and its response to displacement in Rwanda. From our findings, we develop a model of dissociation that explains how actors move further away from addressing a wicked problem. We identify four dissociative mechanisms (discounting, delimiting, separating, and displaying) that each create a distinct regime-level barrier. These barriers are distributed and mutually reinforcing, which makes it increasingly hard for actors to find alternative ways of responding to an escalating problem. Our study provides insights for research on regimes and wicked problems as well as studies on institutional barriers. We conclude with policy implications for overcoming those barriers, in line with the wider concerns and motivations of this special issue