This article explores the cultural narratives through which members of organizations define legitimacy during prolonged periods of change. We view legitimacy work as a cultural practice and interpretive process that takes the form of organizational narratives. We show how the shifting configurations of internal power relations shape both the choice and the meaning attached to the varied legitimacy narratives. We investigate the construction of legitimacy through a longitudinal case study based on participant observation of Gamma, a government Research and Development (R&D) organization, during a process of intense change. We provide theoretical insights into the construction and deconstruction of the legitimacy by analyzing the narratives in play during a process of planned change. We claim that legitimation narratives not only evolve in accordance with functional need or, in a sense, that older narratives give room to newer, more updated or relevant narratives, but also that multiple narratives are used by different organization actors alternately and interchangeably as part of internal contestation over legitimation of change.

Purpose -While conventional wisdom suggests that sensemaking is targeted towards consensual understanding of the organization's intent and action, the objective of this study is to explore a different angle of sensemaking, namely, a situation of change and crisis in which the sensemaking process focuses on presenting the organization's members with an alternative understanding of its worldview, norms, and values. Design/methodology/approach -The paper is based on a three-year ethnographic field study. Data collection was based on the principles of qualitative research: participant observation, induction, interpretation, close proximity and unmediated relationships with the subjects investigated. The ethnographic method enabled collection of rich data, mainly by viewing the organizational context from its members' perspective, essential for studying. Findings -The paper presents multiple cultural sensemaking accounts and the varied ways that the subjects use their diverse cultural resources and repertoires -ranging from intense ideological commitment to pure science to opportunistic views of their scientific work -in promoting their own, as well as their organization's survival. The study indicates that variations of conflict-oriented sensemaking accounts can serve management's strategic quest for hegemony. Research limitations/implications -Qualitative research approaches position the researcher to learn through participative observation. The researcher acts as a participant in the activities under study and instead of attempting to control procedures and measure qualities of outcomes, the researcher becomes part of the target of study itself. Practical implications -This paper shows that conflict and power relations are ubiquitous to sensemaking, and that multiple accounts can be inherent in sensemaking work. We suggest that the study of sensemaking should also consider conflict as an alternative sensemaking mechanism. Originality/value -Sensemaking is usually described as positive and consensual in nature. Yet, as our study shows, when evolving from conflicting viewpoints, accounts and actions sensemaking can support dissension.

‘Inclusion’ has emerged as a prominent theme in peacemaking. However, its exact meaning remains vague, as do assumptions about the relationship between inclusion and peace. This article seeks to problematize the research, policy and practice of inclusion. Focusing on United Nations (UN) peacemaking, we ask how the object of inclusion has been framed, and based on what strategies and underlying rationales. We do so against the backdrop of emerging debates about an agonistic peace, which suggest that violent antagonistic relationships can be overcome if peace processes enable contestation between adversaries. This requires that peacemakers recognize the constitutive role of difference in political settlements. We identify three distinct strategies for inclusion, with corresponding framings of the included. Firstly, inclusion can be used to build a more legitimate peace; secondly, to empower and protect specific actor groups; and thirdly, to transform the sociopolitical structures that underlie conflict. The first strategy frames the included in open terms that can accommodate a heterogeneity of actors, the second in closed terms pertaining to specific identity traits, and the third in relational terms emerging within a specific social, cultural and political context. In practice, this leads to tensions in the operationalization of inclusion, which are evidence of an inchoate attempt to politicize peace processes. In response, we argue for an approach to relational inclusion that recognizes the power relations from which difference emerges; neither brushing over difference, nor essentializing single identity traits, but rather remaining flexible in navigating a larger web of relationships that require transformation.

When Kosovo declared its independence in 2008, it did so not as a nation-state, but as a “state of communities,” self-defining as multiethnic, diverse, and committed to extensive rights for minorities. In this paper, this choice is understood as a response to a dual legitimation problem. Kosovo experienced both an external legitimation challenge, regarding its contested statehood internationally, and an internal one, vis-à-vis its Serb minority. The focus on diversity and minority rights was expected to confer legitimacy on the state both externally and internally. International state-builders and the domestic political elite in post-conflict Kosovo both pursued this strategy. However, it inadvertently created an additional internal legitimation challenge, this time from within Kosovo's majority Albanian population. This dynamic is illustrated by the opposition movement “Lëvizja Vetëvendosje” (Self-Determination Movement), which rejects the framing of Kosovo as first and foremost a multiethnic state. The movement's counter-narrative represents an additional internal legitimation challenge to the new state. This paper thus finds that internationally endorsed “diversity management” through minority rights did not deliver as a panacea for the legitimacy dilemmas of the post-conflict polity. On the contrary, the “state of communities” continues to be contested by both majority and minority groups in Kosovo.

No abstract