Self-managed programmes in homeless care as (reinvented) institutions

Abstract

Purpose: Self-managed institutional homeless programmes started as an alternative to regular shelters. Using institutional theory as a lens, we aim to explore the experiences of stakeholders with the institutional aspects of a self-managed programs. Method: The data we analysed (56 interviews, both open and semi-structured) were generated in a longitudinal participatory case-study into JES, a self-managed homeless shelter. In our analysis we went back and forth between our empirical data and theory, using a combination of systematic coding and interpretation. Participants were involved in all stages of the research. Results: Our analysis revealed similarities between JES and regular shelters, stemming from institutional similarities. Participants shared space and facilities with sixteen people, which caused an ongoing discussion on (enforcement of) rules. Participants loathed lack of private space. However, participants experienced freedom of choice over both their own life and management of JES and structures were experienced more fluid than in regular care. Some structures also appeared stimulated self-management. Conclusion: Our analysis showed how an institutional context influences self-management and suggested opportunities for introducing freedom and fluidity in institutional care.

Control Through Violence: A situational analysis of embodied practices of violence in a refugee reception centre

“…Our findings also challenge a de-emphasis of violence in current total-institution theorising. For instance, Scott (2010, p. 218) suggests that the ‘portrait Goffman painted [of total institutions] is now mercifully obsolete’, the assumption being that the violence Goffman describes no longer characterises total institutions today (see also Crewe & Ievins, 2020; Dawson, 2017; Huber, Metze, Stam, Van Regenmortel, & Abma, 2020; Odrowaz-Coates, 2015; Rogers, Corley, & Ashforth, 2017; for an earlier variation of this argument, see Murphy et al, 1994). Instead, we suggest that it is important to return to a Goffmanian conceptualisation of total institutions, which emphasises the presence of violence and focuses on how it plays out in interactions.…”

Egenorganisering og frivillige organisasjoners rolle i kampen mot bostedsløshet – et deltakende aksjonsforskningsprosjekt

“…Fokus på økonomisk baerekraft, flere ansatte og sterkere styring var prisen å betale for å få tilgang til organisasjonens ressurser, men også makten til å definere om noe var vellykket eller ikke, og når det skulle avsluttes. Egenorganiserte boligprosjekter i USA og Nederland har knyttet seg til organisasjoner, men bevart autonomien gjennom å organisere egne støtteorganisasjoner eller gi beboerne myndighet til å ansette de prosjektansatte (Heben, 2014;Huber, Metze, Stam, Regenmortel & Abma, 2020). En tydeligere deling mellom prosjektet og organisasjonen kunne gjort det lettere å videreføre noen av ideene.…”