Article

For institutional ethnography:

Geographical approaches to
institutions and the everyday

Progress in Human Geography

122
The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0309132515572269
phg.sagepub.com

Emily Billo
Goucher College, USA

Alison Mountz
Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada

Abstract
In this paper we unpack how geographers have studied institutions, focusing specifically on institutional
ethnography, often called IE. Sociologist Dorothy Smith is widely credited with developing institutional
ethnography as an embodied feminist approach. Smith studies the experiences of women in daily life, and the
complex social relations in which these are embedded. Institutional ethnography offers the possibility to
study up to understand the differential effects of institutions within and beyond institutional spaces and
associated productions of subjectivities and material inequalities. We suggest that geographical scholarship
on institutions can be enhanced and, in turn, has much to contribute to the broader interdisciplinary field on
institutional ethnography, such as understandings of institutions that account for spatial differentiation. We
argue that IE holds potential to enrich geographical research not only about a multitude of kinds of institutions, but about the many structures, effects, and identities working through institutions as territorial
forces. In spite of recent interest by geographers, the broader literature on institutional ethnography remains
under-engaged and under-cited by human geographers. Critical of this lack of engagement, we suggest that it
has left a gap in geographical research on institutions. Our aim is to analyze and advance existing scholarship
and offer this article as a tool for geographers thinking about employing IE. We develop a typology, categorized by methodological approach, to highlight ethnographic approaches to institutions undertaken by
geographers.
Keywords
ethnography, everyday, institutional ethnography, institutions, studying up

Over the last two decades, geographers have

expressed renewed interest in ethnography
(Herbert, 2000) and institutions (e.g. Anderson,
1991; Herbert, 1997; Schoenberger, 1997; Del
Casino et al., 2000; Hyndman, 2000; Nevins,
2002; Mountz, 2010), and growing interest in
institutional ethnography. Whereas Steve Herbert (2000) argued for ethnography in this
journal 15 years ago, we argue for institutional

ethnography in geography. Given geographers

different ways of studying institutions and conducting ethnography, this article parses out
Corresponding author:
Emily Billo, Environmental Studies Program, Goucher
College, 1021 Dulaney Valley Road, Baltimore, MD 21204,
USA.
Email: emily.billo@goucher.edu

approaches by unpacking how geographers

go about studying institutions, with particular
attention to institutional ethnography.
Institutional ethnography was originally conceptualized and coined by sociologist Dorothy
Smith (1987, 2006), developed subsequently
by other feminist social scientists (e.g. Campbell and Gregor, 2004; Devault, 2006), and
operationalized recently by geographers using
a range of methodological approaches. Institutional ethnography has explicit critical or liberatory goals in its exploration of processes of
subordination. Rooted in Marxist and feminist
scholarship, institutional ethnography encompasses an integrated approach. Smith (1987)
developed institutional ethnography as an
embodied feminist approach. Her first analysis began from the example of single mothers
constructed as defective within dominant
social narratives, including schooling and health
care. The role of the researcher in this case is to
uncover the ruling relations that produce single mothers as outside the norm, exposing how
teachers and other institutional actors are bound
up in the production of dominant narratives and
practices. Institutional ethnography brings to
the fore these kinds of problems in the system
that discriminate against single mothers and
maps paths to social change.
Institutional ethnography is valuable, useful,
and productive for geographers as it holds potential to broaden their work on institutions
including their conceptualization, socio-spatial
relations, effects in daily life and potential
contributions to social justice movements. In
spite of recent interest among geographers, the
broader literature on institutional ethnography
(often called IE) remains under-engaged and
under-cited by human geographers. Critical of
this lack of engagement, we suggest that it has
left a gap in geographical research on institutions. Rather than explore the reasons why geographers have not engaged existing scholarship
more deeply, we explore its potential contributions to geography, and from geography, in turn,

Progress in Human Geography

to the broader field of IE. Our aim is to analyze

and advance existing scholarship and offer this
article as a tool for geographers thinking about
employing IE, which is practiced in a variety
of ways.
We argue that IE holds potential to enrich
geographical research not only about a multitude of kinds of institutions, but about the
many structures, effects, and identities working through institutions as territorial forces.
We advocate for continued development of
institutional ethnography and find that geographic scholarship on institutions will be much
enhanced through engagement with scholarship
beyond the discipline. Furthermore, engagement with scholarship beyond the disciplines
borders will not only enhance scholarship on
institutions, but potentially enhance contributions of research on institutions to social justice
movements.
We begin with a brief overview of how geographers have studied institutions over time in
order to situate the recent upswing. We then
explain institutional ethnography in more detail
as an interdisciplinary field developed by feminist scholars from the late 1980s to the present.
In our penultimate section, we examine how
geographers have recently used institutional
ethnography with a typology of approaches. The
section ends with an exploration of avenues to
more sustained, critical engagement with other
social scientists working on and in institutions.
We conclude with a summary of contributions
and new questions.

I Placing IE in geography: A
necessarily incomplete genealogy
of disciplinary engagement with
institutions
Geographers have debated methods with which
to research institutions (Flowerdew, 1982; Del
Casino et al., 2000; Herbert, 2000) and epistemological frames through which to understand
them (Philo and Parr, 2000). We aim here to

Billo and Mountz

situate geographers recent interests in institutions within a broader history within the discipline, without necessarily establishing direct
movement or causality between one moment
of institutional engagement and the next (as in
the genealogical tradition). Underlying shifts
in the discipline will be recognizable, including
humanism and managerialism of the 1960s and
1970s, the cultural and institutional turns of the
1980s and 1990s, and the influence of postmodern, poststructural, and feminist thought in the
1990s and 2000s. Geographers have examined
institutions in fits and starts over time, often
lacking the history of disciplinary engagement
and contemporary scholarship on institutions
thriving in other disciplines (e.g. Iskander,
2010; Rodriguez, 2010). The result is a fragmented history of engagement.
Our review begins in the 1960s and 1970s,
when geographers studying institutions were
largely managerialists who, influenced by behavioralist geographers, tended to critique the idea
of the institution as monolith and analyze the
role of different government institutions, their
effects on cities and populations, and their geographical patterns (Pahl, 1977; Flowerdew,
1982; Ley, 1983; Kariya, 1993; Philo and Parr,
2000: 515).
Humanist geographers challenged the work of
managerialists, examining how managers shape
social realities through the internal cultures of
organizations. Ley, for example, contested a
Weberian approach that conceptualized institutions as efficient and rational bodies with perfect
access to information (1983: 220). He observed
a lack of everyday empirical analysis (Ley,
1983: 220). This dearth of empirical evidence
and the failure to examine quotidian practices are
recurring themes in geographers approaches to
institutions. Such an inductive approach would
pay more attention to the everyday contexts out
of which organizational actions emerge and to
the meanings of events to organizational members who lie behind their initiatives and
responses (Ley, 1983: 225). As precursor to

contemporary forms of institutional ethnography, Ley (1983) explored internal subcultures

of urban institutions and the rise of organizational consciousness that accompanied explosive
growth in institutions in the 1960s and 1970s. He
critiqued the pure or total organization of
Weber and of Goffman (1961), analyzing instead
how distinctly and unevenly institutions operated
on the ground (see also Kariya, 1993).
Geographical analyses of institutions have
shifted between macro-theoretical structures to
micro-level theories. Some approached them
at finer scales, focusing on spatial arrangements
within institutions (Philo and Parr, 2000: 514).
Others deemed this approach a middle way;
following Giddens (1984) structuration theory
and associated debates about structure and
agency in the 1980s and 1990s, institutions
offered an interim level of social systems,
or the social practices that regulate daily life.
This meso-level approach proved significant
among economic geographers who responded
to the broader institutional turn within geography with an understanding that economic decisions were rooted in social institutions (Martin,
2000; Jessop, 2001).
Differing epistemological approaches contribute significantly to how institutions and
organizations are defined and studied methodologically.1 Del Casino and co-authors (2000)
outline three frameworks for analysis: spatial
science, critical realism, and poststructuralism.
They argue that spatial scientists tend to believe
that social relations can readily and literally be
mapped onto the landscape through rules and
patterns that govern and explain human behavior. Critical realists similarly believe in the
material realities and effects of institutions. In
contrast, poststructuralists tend to look beneath
the surface to understand the underlying conditions, social relations and discourses that brought
such material relations into existence.
Drawing on Foucault (1970, 1995, 1997) and
exemplified by Gibson-Graham (1996), a constructivist approach focuses on discourses, such

as economy, society, and politics, that bring

forth objects and events and determine their
relationship to one another (Del Casino et al.,
2000: 526). In this framework, institutions do
not emerge out of preexisting conditions, but are
produced and discursively constructed as entities with particular social significance and subjectivities (Del Casino et al., 2000). In the
Foucauldian tradition, scholars mapped processes of deinstitutionalization and the entrance
of mechanisms of social regulation into the
realm of the social body. This approach understands subjectivity to be constituted through
webs of legal, medical, and social relationships
through which power shifts, operating in more
dispersed, topological fashion (Martin and
Secor, 2014) and highlighting the relationship
between social and spatial relations. Constructivism fueled development of new approaches to
the state and other institutions that grew more
concerned with discourse and representation
(e.g. Olsson, 1974; Jackson, 1989; Anderson,
1991; Driver, 1991) and critiqued spatially
fixed and bounded notions of institutions. Constructivists understood institutions as actively
produced through daily social contexts.
Rather than as a repressive, autonomous
body that affects social relations, poststructuralists conceptualize institutions as themselves
social constructions able to produce knowledge
and identities. This approach influenced by
Foucauldian understandings of power and discourse and actor network theory, among other
ideas understands institutional powers and
effects as dispersed, embedded, and entangled,
with more permeable boundaries dividing what
and who lies within and beyond the institution
(Rutherford, 2007) and tends to focus on operations beyond the architecture of the institution,
such as subjectivity formation and daily life
(Ashutosh, 2010). This approach entails looking
at institutions as sites where employees enact
policies across time and space, where the
everyday relations among those theoretically
conceived of as outside bleed into daily

Progress in Human Geography

institutional life and vice versa. This geographical imagination of the institution posits
boundaries as fluid in daily practice. Such an
understanding requires a method that holds
quotidian life as its main focus: ethnography.
Ethnography holds potential to address daily
empirical knowledge on institutions and often
reveals the unevenness of institutional practices
and effects. As the study of daily life, ethnography has been important to the discipline since
the early days of cultural geography. Duncan
and Duncan (2009) note that Carl Sauers
detailed observations of the landscape drawn
from interviews, archives, and observations
would today likely be considered ethnographic.
The method came fully into practice through
humanistic geographers (Ley, 1974) mapping
detailed observation of daily interactions
between individuals and their environment. The
recent surge in ethnography once again examines the cultural dimensions of daily work of
institutions (e.g. Herbert, 2000; Hyndman,
2000; Mountz, 2010; Belcher and Martin,
2013; Kuus, 2013; Delaney, 2014). Many ethnographies can be found among recent doctoral
dissertations, evidence of renewed interest
among a new generation of geographers (Ashutosh, 2010; Hiemstra, 2011; Houston, 2011;
Lindner, 2012; Santiago, 2013; VandeBerg,
2013). Institutional ethnographies have grown
in popularity as one incarnation of this trend
(e.g. Perreault, 2003a, 2003b; King, 2009; Larner and Laurie, 2010; Billo, 2015).

II What is institutional
ethnography?
Ethnography is the detailed study of everyday life,
the ethnographers tools participant-observation,
fieldnotes, and interviews (Emerson et al.,
1995). Crucially, ethnography involves more than
the conduct of interviews. Participant-observation
and archival analysis enable the ethnographer to
study how people interact and interpret meaning:
what people do as well as what they say

Billo and Mountz

(Herbert, 2000: 552). This need to observe is crucial to the workings of institutions. While interviews lend insight into actors and operations of
institutions, participant-observation, fieldnotes,
and detailed archival study enable spatial analysis
and associated insights into power relations.
Where, for example, are different workers located
within a building and by social location? How are
embodiments and encounters gendered, racialized, classed, and sexualized? The ethnographer
unravels patterns of behavior and interaction,
categories of identification, modes of management, exercises in power and interpretation in
everyday life.
Ethnographic approaches to institutions have
been popular since anthropologist Laura Nader
published a seminal piece in 1972 where she
argued that anthropologists study up in order
to better understand how institutions structure
daily life. She suggested that through this effort,
anthropologists could expand analyses beyond
those marginalized peoples upon whom they
had built the discipline. She emphasized how
little most people knew about bureaucracies and
organizations that had lasting material effects
on them (1972: 294). She argued that people
should have access to institutions and knowledge about how they function:
A democratic framework implies that citizens
should have access to decision-makers, institutions of government, and so on. This implies that
citizens need to know something about major
institutions, government or otherwise, that affect
their lives. (Nader, 1972: 294).

Institutional ethnography later became a key

method of studying up. Below, we discuss the
development of the approach by feminist scholars and, subsequently, by geographers.
Dorothy Smiths conception of institutional
ethnography relies on a dispersed model of the
institution and its effects, with a focus on mapping the daily lived relations of ruling. Smith
studies processes and practices that determine
social relations from standpoints grounded in

Figure 1. Isabel Dycks (1988) p. 131 adaptation of

Dorothy Smiths institutional ethnography. Reproduced with kind permission of the author.

the everyday. Her approach to institutional ethnography begins with situated experiences of
women in daily life, then explores relations in
which these experiences are embedded: a complex of interactions between individuals, institutions, and society. Smith argues that sociologys
ways of knowing the world operate within the
framework of dominant institutions that devalue
women, differentially positioned by class,
race, and other axes of difference. Social relations engender relations of the ruling that
guide, control, coordinate and regulate societies.
Smith developed this approach to create a
sociology for women, to explore how women
are organized and determined by social processes that extend beyond their immediate
everyday worlds (Smith, 1987: 152). For DeVault
(2006: 295), ruling relations function not simply
as heuristic device, but closely connect the
contemporary everyday with historic, capitalist
relations that privilege certain understandings
of motherhood and women over others. These
relations are represented visually in feminist
geographer Isabel Dycks (1988) diagram in
Figure 1.
In feminist approaches to institutional ethnography, these processes are constructions of
text-based methodologies and practices of formal organization (Smith, 1987: 1523; 2006).

Methods include interviews, participantobservation, and textual analysis. The interview

process includes not just a focus on the subjective state of the interviewee, but a means to
move onto next steps in an ongoing process of
inquiry (DeVault and McCoy, 2002). The
researcher must identify the key problematic
before moving to the next stage of analysis.
Interviews prove insufficient to address core
power issues that impede social change (Winkelman and Halifax, 2007: 132). Therefore, institutional ethnography also often involves archival
work, textual analysis, or recollection, as determined by the investigation (Smith, 1987).
In this tradition, analysis emerges deductively from empirical observations attentive to
the role of policy documents such as medical
charts and plans as key organizing sites. IE is
designed to reveal the organizing power of
texts in order to link local and extralocal activities (DeVault, 2006: 295). Texts allow the
researcher to reach beyond the locally observable and discoverable into the translocal social
relations and organization that permeate and
control the local (Smith, 2006: 65).
Smith designed IE to facilitate collaboration among researchers (DeVault, 2006). The
approach is considered an ongoing, evolving
practice, rather than a clearly demarcated or
completed project; the practice grows through
networking, relationships, and group meetings
among feminist scholars. The field has expanded
beyond sociology, extending into other disciplines with both professional and scholarly applications (Campbell and Gregor, 2004; DeVault,
2008), the ideas especially influential in nursing
(Winkelman and Halifax, 2007), social work,
and education (DeVault, 2006).
An institutional ethnography begins with
identification of an experience, followed by noting the institutional processes that produce the
experience, and then investigation of processes
identified (Dyck, 1997; DeVault and McCoy,
2002). Dyck (1988) exemplifies this approach
in her adaptation in Figure 1. She explains in a

Progress in Human Geography

subsequent publication how Smiths conceptualization of institutional ethnography framed

research with immigrant women: we considered the way women talked of their experiences
as a starting point to discovering the social relations organizing their day-to-day lives (1997:
189). What emerged out of these studies were
complex and contextual understandings of identity, gendered and racialized subjectivities, and
more nuanced accounts of relations of oppression (Dyck, 1997: 198).
In their didactic text Mapping Social Relations, Campbell and Gregor (2004) show how
the approach is rooted in feminist praxis and a
politics of location, committing researchers to
begin from their own socioeconomic locations
and experiences. From there, researchers endeavor to address problematics and focus on puzzles emerging in everyday life (2004: 7). IE
does not set out to develop generalized theory,
but rather to explicate experiential data
(Campbell and Gregor, 2004: 8). Campbell and
Gregor explain frequently how IE is distinct
from conventional research in its requirement
that the researcher be a knower located in the
everyday world and find meaning there, in contrast to reliance on library research and the
application of theories (2004: 11). Winkelman
and Halifax (2007) distinguish between IE and
conventional ethnography by suggesting that
IE takes both subjective and objective views
of social relations, whereas conventional ethnography focuses more on participants or insiders views (Winkelman and Halifax, 2007).2
As such, the approach is consistent with the politics of location, positionality, and self-reflexivity
explored by feminist geographers (Katz, 1996;
Mullings, 1999; Pratt, 2000; Moss, 2002).
Scholars in this tradition collaborate, engage
with each others work to build upon previous
work and advance the field. Building on this
understanding and operationalization of IE, others have focused on neoliberalism and postFordist restructuring as an extension of Smiths
work (see Naples, 1997). Neoliberalism is

Billo and Mountz

analyzed as meta-discourse that determines

particular institutional relationships, making
way for other IE studies to focus on the intellectual institutions that develop the meta-discourses
(DeVault, 2006). Ultimately, scholars doing IE
connect through their scholarship with an ontological commitment to examining ruling relations
at work in historically-specific activities. Individual studies build toward meta-discourses
that cross social arenas and create spaces for
new discourses and political projects to emerge
(DeVault, 2006).
While conceptually inspiring, we note two
shortcomings that make space for geographical
contributions to IE. First, IE produces somewhat
aspatial understandings of institutions. The use of
the term mapping in this approach is a figure of
speech. Smith endeavors to write for the masses
in ways that should be readily accessible as a map
would be (Campbell and Gregor, 2004: 9). Mapping itself and spatial analysis more broadly
remain largely absent from the approach. While
deeply rooted in the everyday and feminist epistemology, the approach lacks spatial analysis of
the institutional geographies and their effects.
The method of IE does not place as much emphasis on differentiation between different spaces of
the institution. As a result, the institution remains
flat, leaving room for more complex analyses of
the spaces of institutional productions of power.
Second, IE is conceptually problematic in its
quest for a meta-narrative that risks losing sight
of the messiness of institutional relationships in
everyday contexts.
In contrast, geographical approaches to IE can
and do account for the spatial differentiation by
locating marginal spaces and spaces of exception,
for example, within, through, and beyond the
institution. Geographers often examine institutions as structures that influence society: asylums
and hospitals, for example, seek to control and
regulate, restrain or treat human minds and bodies
(Philo and Parr, 2000: 514). Philo and Parr (2000:
515) argue that the geography of institutions and
their relative location to people, land uses, and

resources contribute to understanding social and

spatial relationships that can challenge this disciplinary process. Institutional analyses address
daily happenings within and between institutions
and their relationships to larger economic, political and cultural processes (Philo and Parr, 2000:
51415).
Methodologically, institutional ethnography
enables location of the institution in the spatial
relationships of multi-scalar everyday interactions
to avoid characterizing it as a repressive autonomous body that affects social relations (Mountz,
2010: xxiv). Ethnographic analysis can point to
the frustrations, subversions and networks
amongst various actors, contributing to the breaking points theorized as an institutional arrangement of social practices (Mountz, 2010: xxv).
Ethnography and attention to the spatial relationships in these processes can link the particular histories of places with ongoing and overlapping
processes of claims to territory and sovereignty.
Geographers ethnographies can document
and produce more geographically textured
understandings of institutions. In Herberts
(1997) ethnography of local policing carried out
by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD),
for example, the method of conducting ridealongs with officers draws into relief individual
officers interpretations and productions of territoriality in local neighborhoods. His approach
also highlights the nuances and intimacies of
boundaries drawn between private domestic and
public policing spheres.
Social scientists study up by researching
institutions of all kinds. Critical ethnography
enables an approach to the state as a set of social
practices (Painter, 1995: 34) and diverse institutional actors exercising agency through quotidian
bureaucratic arrangements (e.g. Herbert, 1997).
Ethnographies of the state are another recent
example emerging among geographers (Mountz,
2007, 2010; Houston, 2011) and other scholars
(Nelson, 1999; Ferguson and Gupta, 2002;
Sharma and Gupta, 2006; Iskander, 2010; Rodriguez, 2010). Hansen and Stepputat (2001)

advocated localized, ethnographic approaches to

the state centered in the field and relying heavily
on participant-observation (e.g. Herbert, 1997).
As Timothy Mitchell (2002) suggested, analysis
of disciplinary power must occur at the level of
detail, or the scale of the everyday. Related
developments are anthropology of bureaucracy
(Heyman, 1995; Gupta, 1995), ethnographies of
modernity (Englund and Leach, 2000), globalization (Burawoy et al., 2000), neoliberalism
(Colloredo-Mansfeld, 2002), and events (Brosius
and Campbell, 2010).
Institutional ethnography can address the production of institutions and subjectivities in particular places and moments that become imbued
with meaning. Institutions provide an important and necessary entry point into boundarymaking, categorization, and subjectivity-making
(Anderson, 1991, Ashutosh, 2010). To explore
these possibilities more deeply, we examine
recent work in geography characterized by
authors as institutional ethnography. We also
note, though, the significant omission of engagement with work by Smith and other IE scholars
among some geographers doing institutional
ethnography.

III How geographers have

conducted institutional
ethnography
This review provides a foundation for more
cross-referencing and fuller engagement, offering potential to develop and expand ethnographic approaches to institutions within the
discipline. In the first part of this section we
explore studies by geographers who explicitly
identify their own work as institutional ethnography, beginning with the earliest such references that we could find. Our findings are
based on key term searches for institutional
ethnography and geography in Google scholar, WorldCat dissertations database, and for
institutional ethnography in the following
journals: Annals of the Association of American

Progress in Human Geography

Geographers, Progress in Human Geography,

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, The Canadian Geographer, Area, and The
Professional Geographer. We include scholarship by anyone who framed writing as institutional ethnography and was either housed in a
geography department, publishing in a geography
journal, or trained as a geographer. Additionally,
we presented the work at a national conference,
workshopped the paper with graduate students
in a large geography department in North America, and asked 15 additional geographers working
in related fields to provide feedback on this paper
and apprise us of any omissions.
In this section, we track uses of the term institutional ethnography by geographers (listed in
Table 1), and then explain and illustrate a typology of ethnographic approaches to institutions
more broadly (located in Table 2). Table 1
shows geographical scholarship where authors
explicitly frame research as institutional ethnography. We note the specific methods (interviews,
participant-observation, and textual analysis) used
in each study. In every case, interviews proved
central, but only half used all three methods.
As a study of daily life, we suggest that ethnography must involve more than interviews, or
what participants say, as Herbert (2000) notes.
We ask what makes these studies ethnographic
if, in some cases, everyday life in the institution
is overlooked?
The earliest use of the term institutional ethnography that we could find was by feminist
geographer Isabel Dyck (1988, 1997), followed
by Jennifer Hyndman (1996, 2000). Both
applied Smiths approach to governmental and
supra-governmental organizations. Both scholars began from experience, in Hyndmans case
prior employment with the agency studied. They
locate the institution in daily life by following the
quotidian experiences of people and policies.
Dycks (1988, 1997) work in health geography
tracked health-related institutions through peoples daily encounters, and she also studied the
experiences of immigrant women. Hyndman

Billo and Mountz

Table 1. Scholarship characterized by geographers as institutional ethnography.

Year, General topic (citation)
1997 Health care
(Dyck 1988, 1997)
2000 UN management of refugee camps
(Hyndman 1996, 2000)
2003 Indigenous organizations
(Perreault, 2003a)
2007 Federal immigration bureaucracy (Mountz 2007,
2010)
2009 Conservation organizations
(King 2009)
2010 Policy development
(Larner and Laurie 2010)
2012 Corporate social responsibility (Billo 2012, 2015)
Disaster management (Grove 2013)
2013 UN agency fighting piracy
(VandeBerg 2013, Gilmer 2014)6

(1996, 2000) researched the practices and

effects of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees management of refugee
camps in Kenya. She merges political economy
with feminist analysis to understand how donor
states and governments hosting refugees work
through the organization across sites and scales
to ultimately manage bodies, subjectivities,
and resources on the ground.
The next usage of the term institutional ethnography occurs among geographers doing
work related to environmental and development agencies (Perreault 2003a, 2003b; King,
2009; Larner and Laurie, 2010; Wolford,
2010a). Beginning less often with personal
experience, this scholarship attends closely to
the movement of ideas, discourses and policies
about development, beginning within and emanating outward from institutions and often
focused on the role of elites within institutions.
King (2009) suggests that institutional ethnography, development ethnography, and network
ethnography are interchangeable terms, linked
by their concern with penetrating organizations
and social networks to understand how particular

Participantobservation
p

Interviews
p

p
p
p

p
p

Archival or
textual
p

discourses and policies are created (King, 2009:

409). Scholars working in the field of environment and development (cf. Watts, 2001, 2002;
Perreault, 2003a, 2003b; Wainwright, 2008;
King, 2009) have asked how ideas about development become institutionalized, which gain currency in battlefields over knowledge such as
the World Bank (Bebbington et al., 2004), where
and how conflict transpires and consent is produced, sometimes exploring the internal
dynamics of large development institutions (Hart,
2004). In these studies, the researcher usually
conducts interviews with or analyzes discussions
of those on the inside (Perreault, 2003a, 2003b;
Bebbington et al., 2004; Goldman, 2004, 2005;
King, 2009; Wolford, 2010a).
Whereas Table 1 includes only those who
frame their own work as IE, Table 2 broadens
the analysis to include recent ethnographic
approaches to institutions undertaken by geographers, whether explicitly labeled institutional ethnography or not. We designed a
typology to categorize these studies by methodological approach in order to discern different
ethnographic approaches to institutions, as

10

Progress in Human Geography

Table 2. Typology of approaches to institutional ethnography within geography.7

Methodological
approach
1. Following

2. Time on the
inside

3. Getting at the
inside:
interviews
with
organizational
actors
4. Influencing life
on the outside

5. Event
ethnography

Types of
institutions
studied

Geographical
conceptualization
of the institution

Authors8

Following actors,
participantobservation,
interviews

Enforcement
Transnational,
Herbert (1997, 2000),
agencies, CSR,
translocal,
Hyndman (2000),
health and
institution that
Nevins (2002), Larner
humanitarian
produces
and Laurie (2010),
agencies
territoriality,
Wolford (2010b),
people who cross
Moran et al. (2012,
thresholds
2013), Billo (2012, 2015)
ParticipantAsylums,
More attention to
Kariya (1993), Hyndman
observation,
bureaucracies
the rhythms of
(1996, 2000), Parr
interviews
interior
(2000), Mountz (2010),
inside the
institutions
Houston (2011), Moran,
institution (a
spaces, observing
Gill, and Conlon (2013),
specific place)
roles and
Vandeburg (2013),
interactions
Gilman (2014)
Interviews,
Development,
Interviews may take Perreault (2003a, 2003b),
discourse
governmental
place inside or
Bebbington et al. (2004),
analysis
and nonoutside the
King (2009), Peck and
governmental
institution
Theodore (2010),
agencies
Wolford (2010a),
Houston (2011), Grove
(2013)
ParticipantGovernmental
Constituted by
Dyck (1988, 1997),
observation and
and nonpeople once
Hiemstra (2011),
interviews,
governmental
inside, now on
Bhungalia (2013),
textual analysis
agencies
the outside
Moran, Piacentini, and
from outside of
Pallot (2013)
the institution
Short-term
Development,
Fleeting temporal
Brosius and Campbell
participantenvironmental
and spatial
(2010), Corson and
observation of
events where
dimensions
McDonald (2012),
key events
policy is
Suarez and Corson
developed
(2013)

following, refers to the tendency of researchers to follow institutional actors in their

daily work. This following relies heavily on
participant-observation to document power
relations at a microscale, such as movements
into and out of the material structure of the institution, and along territories constructed by insti1. A typology of approaches to institutions tutional actors, such as neighborhoods, refugee
We delineate five ethnographic approaches to camps, and border crossings. As noted earlier,
institutions in our typology. The first, Herberts (1997) ethnography with the LAPD
well as some associated insights and shortcomings. Our typology notes distinctions in methods used (participant-observation, interviews,
textual and discourse analysis), and the spatial
dimensions of each approach.

Billo and Mountz

involved riding with police officers to understand how constructions of space and renderings
of the boundaries of neighborhoods enacted violence on residents. Like Herbert, Nevins (2002)
did ride-alongs with US border patrol along the
Mexico-US border to understand how readings
of the landscape and daily transgressions therein
enabled authorities to enact racialized violence
that built on historical dispossession in the
region. Although Herbert, Nevins, and others
(e.g. Hiemstra, 2011; Bhungalia, 2013) do not
label their work institutional ethnography, we
find these to be contemporary and ethnographically rich accounts of institutions located along
borders and carrying out bordering processes
beyond office walls. Other geographers have conducted research that we find to be important to the
development of ethnography in the discipline, if
not labeled as institutional ethnography, including Andersons (1991) and Houstons (2011)
work on city government and Schuurmans
(2008) innovative database ethnographies.
The second approach, time on the inside,
overlaps with the first, but has the researcher
placing more emphasis on dwelling in the
offices of the institution, and particularly in
the bureaucracy. Whereas Herbert (1997) and
Nevins (2002) spent more time in the field
following actors in their work outside of the
office (with occasional visits to the field beyond
office), for example, Mountz (2010) and VandeBerg (2013) spent more time studying daily
work within bureaucratic offices of federal and
UN agencies (with occasional visits to beyond).
Importantly, both of these first two categories
involved participant-observation, which lent
insights into the daily life of institutional spaces,
whether in the office or the field. While time on
the inside reveals much about the operation of
power within the institution, less time is generally spent beyond the institution looking at institutional effects. This may relate to the topic
itself, such as the difficulty of pursuing people
involved in piracy (VandeBerg, 2013) or human
smuggling at sea (Mountz, 2010).

11

As an illustrative example, we explore Gilmers (2014) work in greater depth.3 Gilmer

worked for the UN agency created to combat
piracy in and around Somalia. Like previous
scholarship on agencies that regulate mobility
(Herbert, 1997; Hyndman, 2000), Gilmer makes
extensive use of participant-observation. Hired
by the agency to design and implement a public
campaign to assist in this fight, Gilmer builds on
her insider perspective to undertake a critical
ethnography of the agency and its construction
of pirates and piracy. She finds that many of the
initiatives fail to thwart piracy, instead lining
the coffers of development workers who themselves become the lucrative subjects of securitization as they compete for funding and become
what she calls piratized in the process. By
following and spending time on the inside,
Gilmers analysis addresses distinct social
locations of those who work across the hierarchy of the organization, with English-speaking
employees from countries of the Global North
performing the higher skilled and higher paid
jobs, for example. She is also able to observe the
minutiae of daily work, the power struggles
over decisions made within the office and the
corruption encountered on her trips into Somalia and island prisons where people arrested for
piracy are held and interviewed.
One of the challenges of this approach involves
the intimate entanglements that emerge through
friendship and working ethnographic relationships in which researchers become embroiled,
and the inevitable betrayal that ensues (Stacey,
1988; Visweswaran, 1994; Mountz, 2007). Herbert (2000) writes about the emotional and
physical effects of participant-observation that
may involve witnessing violence or discriminatory behavior or omitting information from the
analysis. Such violence may be another reason
why those who spend more time on the inside
are sometimes less able to gain access to those
who are biopolitically managed by institutions.
The third category, getting at the inside:
interviews with organizational actors, is

12

perhaps the most common approach among geographers identifying their work as institutional
ethnography over the last ten years. This
approach relies less on participant-observation,
and more heavily on analysis of interviews and
documents to access the institutional structure,
sometimes characterized as a black box (Bebbington et al., 2004: 37). In these studies, the
researcher is usually located outside of the institution and accesses information about the institution by conducting interviews and corresponding
with institutional actors or accessing discourses
of those on the inside through reports and publications (Perreault, 2003a, 2003b; Goldman,
2004, 2005; King, 2009; Wolford, 2010a).4
Analysis may also examine how institutional
discourses travel into the world beyond the
institution (Bebbington et al., 2004). These
studies have tended to adopt more bounded
notions of the institution with more clearly
defined populations, policies, and cultures
(e.g. Goldman, 2004; 2005; Lewis and Mosse,
2006; King, 2009) and have drawn on discourse
and debates among elites (e.g. Bebbington
et al., 2004) to understand how institutions and
individual actors within them shape development (e.g. Goldman 2004, 2005).
Perreault (2003a, 2003b), for example, draws
on interviews with key informants to examine
how ethnicity, territory, and identity intersect
in an indigenous Kichwa organization in Ecuador, producing a discourse through which indigenous peoples participate in development
processes. His analysis focuses on the ways in
which indigenous organizations resist, refract,
and at times reproduce dominant narratives of
development, modernization, and citizenship
(Perreault, 2003a: 586). Perreault (2003a: 602)
aims to uncover the organizations political strategies to contest and negotiate processes of
development and social transformation. King
(2009) analyzes the centrality of a neoliberal
commercialization discourse in a South African
conservation organization, while Goldman
(2004, 2005) focuses on the production of the

Progress in Human Geography

World Banks authoritative green knowledge.

These studies are linked by their liberatory
potential in negotiation of development processes (Perreault, 2003a: 603), but limited in
their articulation of the daily operation of institutions and the social locations or embodiment
of those who do (and do not) inhabit them.
While acknowledging the partiality of their
findings, these studies produce disembodied
institutions, rather than what the anthropologist
Clifford Geertz (1973) famously called thick
description of daily life of and in the institution.
While not working under the rubric of institutional ethnography, Bebbington and co-authors
(Bebbington et al., 2004, 2006) study discursive
debates over the concept of social capital transpiring in the World Bank. They explore the
relationship between the institutions inside
and out, arguing that getting inside development institutions is important for understanding
how and why certain discourses emanate from
them, for interpreting the significance of these
discourses, and for understanding the indeterminate relationship between discourse and practice
(Bebbington et al., 2004: 34). Through discourse
analysis of publications and personal communications, the authors find:
different arenas in which the contests are waged:
internally among its staff (the battlefield we focus
on here); externally with non-Bank actors and
those encountered in the course of implementing
projects; and more intriguingly cross-border
battles in which different sub-communities within
the Bank are linked to different communities outside the Bank, and where the battles engage larger
communities whose memberships transcend institutional boundaries. (Bebbington et al., 2004: 38)

In this approach, the embodiment and positionality of researchers is not the starting point. Instead,
researchers examine the discourses and players at
work within a powerful institution and struggles
over knowledge production among them. They
accomplish this through examination of texts
rather than the social locations of their authors.

Billo and Mountz

These studies did not involve participantobservation in the form of following actors or
spending time on the inside, but tended to involve
the conduct of interviews with employees both
within and beyond institutional spaces. As Kuus
(2013) argues, this limitation may reflect the challenge of actually conducting ethnographic study
of policy issues.5 Yet data drawn from interviews
without the insights of participant-observation
limit the claims a study can make to understand
and interpret daily life in Geertzs (1973) terms:
detailed-oriented thick description.
In contrast, anthropologist Diane Nelson
(1999) makes related arguments in her ethnography of the state, studying representations
of indigenous and state identities in Guatemala
with a distinct approach. She posits the state is
imagined and lived through multiple bodies
politic of Mayan women, rooted in manipulation and violence tied to indigenous rights and
nation-building. She operates not only within a
distinct discipline, but with a distinct set of
epistemological frameworks from development
ethnographies: feminist, postmodern, and poststructural approaches. The result is a more dispersed understanding of institutions and their
embeddedness in daily life. Sawyer (2001,
2004), also an anthropologist, examines the daily
social and environmental consequences of
increased demand for oil via indigenous mobilizations in Ecuador. She employs participantobservation and interviews to explore social
relationships between an indigenous organization, multinational oil companies, and the state
that produce indigenous opposition to economic
globalization in its neoliberal guise (Sawyer,
2004: 7). She focuses specifically on the power
inequalities that emerge in this terrain of struggle over identities, territories, and relations
as indigenous peoples sought recognition and
rights in a plurinational Ecuadorian state (2004:
222). In these analyses, people themselves
embody, inhabit, and shape institutional structures at the same time that they are shaped by
them.

13

While some geographers engage in discourse

and ideas on the inside, others use ethnography
to understand how institutions influence life on
the outside. The fourth and fifth categories,
influencing life on the outside and event ethnography, involve even more distance from the
physical spaces of the institution, deriving
material from purviews outside of institutional
spaces, either through interviews, archives, or
observations that provided more limited
glimpses and allow for less triangulation than
sustained time on the inside. Although they do
not characterize their work as institutional ethnography, for example, both Hiemstra (2011)
and Bhungalia (2013) conducted ethnographic
research on US agencies: detention and deportation systems run by the Department of Homeland Security and the work of US AID in
Palestine, respectively. Their ethnographies
were not in the headquarters in countries where
these institutions are based, but rather in the
remote locations where the effects of their institutional policies and practices were felt powerfully. Hiemstra worked with deportees and
their families in Ecuador to learn about detention in and deportation from the United States.
Bhungalia worked in Palestine with organizational actors securing funding from US AID.
The result is a decentralized landscape of the
institution what some would call a governmentality approach (Foucault, 1991) or state
effects (Mitchell, 2002) with effects that
extend into daily life well beyond the borders
of the institution or that reverberate transnationally (Hiemstra, 2011; Bhungalia, 2013).
Research in the margins holds potential to shift
understandings of power in and of hegemonic
institutions that advance imperialism and confinement of populations.
While these more spatially removed
approaches may not come as close to the daily
rhythms of life inside the institution, including
institutional oppression, they also result, we
suggest, in a more geographically dispersed
topography of the institutions being studied and

14

a rich rendering of the effects of institutions in

the daily lives of those whom they affect. Their
analyses show production of subjectivities of
aid workers in the West Bank and detainees and
deportees in Cuenca, Ecuador, shaped by USbased national agencies, uncovering mundane
acts of resistance in daily life. Both authors
show the racialized, gendered, and classed
dimensions of institutional effects beyond institutional walls and national boundaries. An obvious limitation of working from the outside is
the lack of direct observation of the daily operations of the institution, with reliance instead on
narratives about institutional practices or policies from aid workers and deportees.
The final category, event ethnographies,
encompasses a recent development undertaken
by 17 scholars in environmental studies working collaboratively to do short, intensive periods
of participant-observation to study events such
as conferences and workshops of powerful institutional meetings (Brosius and Campbell, 2010;
Corson and McDonald, 2012; Suarez and Corson, 2013). This approach draws on ethnographic traditions in development rather than
the field of institutional ethnography. Event ethnographies differ from other approaches for
their temporality: rather than pursue the tradition of long periods of time devoted to understanding the daily rhythms and relations in
place, the event ethnography is premised on
short-term, yet important (if fleeting), moments
of coming together.
Similar to Wolfords (2010a) characterization of ethnography of a site, yet differing in
their use of participant-observation, Corson and
MacDonald (2012) reconceptualize the field
through the event by drawing on research at the
UN Convention on Biological Diversity. We
find this approach innovative for the characterization of the field as a place that brings together
a number of institutions and actors in one time
and place. The opportunity to see people interact in one setting is important, and yet at present
under-developed in the findings reported the

Progress in Human Geography

potential insights of an ethnographic approach

are not yet fulfilled in this incipient work. The
innovative framing of a new field the event
as place is at odds with the lack of description
of that place and those within it. Missing from
these analyses is Geertzs (1973) thick description. In the decision to conceptualize the event
as a place, the description of its characteristics,
landscape, feel, or context has not yet been illustrated. The authors draw primarily on public
statements made in side events, yet those who
spoke them are not described, located, identified
or embodied. The messy, everyday unfolding of
institutional operations that might be constructed from fieldnotes would enhance the
development of event ethnography. Participants
in UN conventions generally agree that much
of the real conversation and work happens
before the event, with the short event providing
a public forum for the statement of positions
and agendas. What kind of negotiations occurred
before the more public performances quoted?
Does the event ethnography include participantobservation in the more mundane, daily lead-up
to the annual coming together? As a result of
the decision to focus temporally and spatially
on the event itself, this approach provides new
insights while missing others.
Fast policy transfer (Peck and Theodore,
2010) and collaborative event ethnography are
part of the upsurge in ethnographic research, but
not necessarily engaged with institutional ethnography. Peck and Theodore (2010) make brief
reference to institutional ethnography in their
writing (citing Larner and Laurie, 2010, who in
turn cite Goldman, 2005). Yet this scholarship
remains largely disconnected from earlier work
on institutional ethnography by geographers and
others. Still, there are important continuities to
observe. As Delaney notes, contemporary trends
in economic geography are influenced by the
Deleuzian assemblage which offers a frame in
which to examine how institutions and policies
territorialize and by actor network theory
with its focus on the act of translation in

Billo and Mountz

bringing policy and practice networks into coherent structures (Delaney, 2014: 19). These
approaches render more dispersed ethnographic
mappings of institutions that could draw from
and advance practices of institutional ethnography. They also share thematic interests, such as
advancing understandings of neoliberalism.
Our typology uncovers distinctions in the
methodological approach and epistemology and
ontology of institutions, with spatial differences
tied to ethnographic methods employed by
researchers. We found that studies that either
omit participant-observation as a method or
do not draw on these data in their analyses fail
to observe the influences and embeddedness
of the institution in everyday life. Participantobservation is attentive to emotion, subjectivity,
power struggles, resistance, and proximity of
the institution. IE is about accessing the everyday, as is ethnography generally. We still
have much to learn from anthropologists such
as Nelson, who is indiscriminate in engaging
ephemera collected in daily life. Chance
encounters, t-shirt slogans, cartoons, conversations all become locations where the institution, its effects and productive capacity are
readily evident. The result is Clifford Geertzs
(1973) thick description of daily life. This
more textured view of an institution differs from
a more fixed notion of the institution whose politics, projects, subjects, and discourses are
accessed primarily through interviews in other
words, the ways that institutional subjects or
employees narrate the institution. The latter
cannot readily account for the sociospatial differences in power operating within and across
the daily productions of an institution. Institutional formation and operation across center
and periphery lead to differential outcomes of
discourse and practice, with unequal impacts
and effects. More sustained, critical engagement with heterogeneous and interdisciplinary
approaches to institutional ethnography will
improve understandings of institutions within
and beyond the discipline of geography.

15

2. Enhancing scholarship on institutions

Here, we explore institutional ethnography from
geographical perspectives. With limited space,
we offer two areas drawn from our own fields
of research to demonstrate how critical engagement across approaches within and beyond the
discipline of geography holds potential to
enhance scholarship on institutions. The two
kinds of institutions we discuss are corporate
social responsibility (CSR) (Billo, 2012, 2015)
and institutions where people are detained (specifically, detention centers and prisons) (Moran
et al., 2012; Mountz et al., 2013; Loyd et al.,
2012; Mitchelson, 2013; Mountz et al., 2013).
Both are sets of institutions that geographers
have shown more interest in of late (Moran
et al., 2012).
CSR programs are the business response to
social and environmental criticism of corporate
operations (Sadler and Lloyd, 2009 ; The Economist, 2008; Watts, 2005). In Ecuador, these
programs emerged out of state, corporate, and
indigenous relationships, and are designed to
ensure ongoing resource extraction. Mandated
by the Ecuadorian state, CSR programs incorporate indigenous peoples in local development
projects, such as drinking water systems and
community infrastructure things the state
might normally provide. Billos (2012) research
uncovers the disciplinary techniques of CSR
programs through implementation of corporate
programs for local development (cf. Foucault,
1991). An IE engages the everyday processes
of implementation of CSR programs that can
at once co-opt and legitimate discourses and
practices of indigenous rights to resources
through the material projects and programs of
CSR. The subsequent presence of CSR programs
in everyday interactions produces ambivalent
indigenous subjects; indigenous entanglement
with dominant power structures complicates
notions of resistance and contributes to new
forms of resource governance and development
processes in Ecuador (Billo, 2012, 2015). In turn,

16

rather than focus solely on narrowly defined corporate projects labeled CSR, IE seeks to understand the relationships that form within CSR
programs and expand well beyond the local indigenous communities, raising questions about
indigenous citizenship and about how the corporate and philanthropic come together to produce
subjectivities in extractive industries (Billo,
2012).
Scholars have argued that prisons are not
what Goffman (1961) labeled the total institution: enclosed facilities that contain everything
and everyone therein (Moran et al., 2013: 110
12). Rather, they can be conceptualized as more
fluid, transcarceral entities (Moran et al.,
2013). Although prisons immobilize and contain those imprisoned, they have surprisingly
permeable boundaries. Many material things
move across prison walls: food, supplies, medical services, information, capital, paperwork,
statistics, workers, visitors, and detainees themselves. This movement proves helpful in studying prisons and detention facilities where people
are held; these are difficult sites for researchers
to access and where researcher access can put
vulnerable populations at further risk. Penal
institutions are therefore highly suited to study
through institutional ethnography in Smiths
tradition. IE opens the institution to research
in ways that do not necessarily require physical
access. Interviews and participant-observation
may fruitfully be conducted with workers, former detainees, and visitors such as family,
friends, and lawyers. This opens a broader landscape through which to understand the prison.
Focusing on what happens not only within but
across boundaries also fosters research on sensitive topics and vulnerable populations in relatively safe ways for those institutionalized.
Conversely, research premised on entry into
prisons would be riskier for participants and
more likely prone to failure should access not
be granted.
Feminist approaches to studying imprisonment have fruitfully pursued more dispersed

Progress in Human Geography

understandings of the social relations of imprisonment with exciting outcomes. Mary Bosworth (2005), for example, conducted research
on imprisonment and co-authored findings with
four prisoners who reflected on the experience.
The result is a situated example of, as well as a
call for, dialogue about research across prison
walls (2005: 250). The authors aim to destabilize power relations and boundaries between
researcher and researched, make clear the
fundamentally affective nature of qualitative
research and show how emotions motivate participants in research and, in so doing, that prisoners like researchers are individuals with
desires and emotions (2005: 251). Bosworth and
co-authors bring to our discussion the alternative media and kinds of texts that can be part
of IE, such as the role of letters, their potential
to engage a broad emotional register through
their play with time and space beyond and
within the institution (as in the daily nature of
mail call woven into the slow movement of
mail). In so doing, they disrupt boundaries
between inside and outside of prison and
research project, and what counts as personal
and professional interaction. Similarly, Moran
and co-authors (Moran et al., 2013) conceptualize Russian prisons as mobile, embodied
and transformative transcarceral spaces that
permeate prison walls. By recasting research
as cooperation and intimacy, such approaches
destabilize ownership of research agendas
and outcomes and disrupt masculinist notions
of penetrating institutions, while simultaneously reconfiguring geographical understandings of institutions. These approaches have
tended to be feminist, premised on the project
of analyzing womens experiences (e.g. Dyck,
1997; Bosworth, 2005; Moran et al., 2013).

IV Conclusions
As we have shown in our typology and accompanying discussion, geographers have practiced
institutional ethnography in a variety of ways.

Billo and Mountz

Yet the collective potential for geographers to

deepen development of institutional ethnography and contribute to institutional analyses
remains unrealized. Geographers stand to contribute more sophisticated socio-spatial understandings of institutions. Content analysis of
references found shows that geographers often
do not reference earlier ethnographic research
on institutions in geography or the vibrant, interdisciplinary field of institutional ethnography.
Our typology of institutions will aid in more
direct engagement and discussion of the benefits
and limitations of varied approaches, resulting in
further development of the field. A deepening
and diversity of approaches to institutions can
advance understanding of micro- and macroprocesses, as well as meta-discourses such as
neoliberalism.
We have called for institutional ethnography
and engagement with literature within and
beyond geography. Indeed, pursuing the same
method in distinct contexts illuminates parallels
in the operation of states, capitalism, and the
punitive and productive natures of institutions.
In this context we note subject formation that
emerges through institutions as mediators
between state and subject, at times erasing difference in the name of securing wealth and
membership in the nation-state (cf. Nelson,
2001; Lindner, 2012). Institutional ethnography
offers the possibility to study up to understand
the differential effects of institutions within and
beyond institutional spaces and associated productions of subjectivities and material inequalities. IE can function as an approach to look
within, through, and beyond the architecture,
policies, texts, and problematics of the institution to understand how, why, and for whom.
Practiced in a variety of ways, IE holds potential
to enrich geographical research, both in kinds of
institutions studied and territorial dynamics
rooted in institutional effects, structures, and
identities.
Our research demonstrates that institutions
are not uniform across times and places,

17

although they often construct discourses and

practices that produce a coherent, monolithic
appearance. Through discussion of research on
prison facilities and CSR programs, we show
that IE can be attentive to where the institution is produced and in turn produces daily
lives. Further engagement with subjectivity
and intersectionality will deepen understandings of institutional power and help in the breaking down of barriers between those confined and
those on the outside. By attending to gender, race,
ethnicity, sexuality, and class, the approach can
note differences within and among institutional
actors and those affected by institutions. We
argue that this approach is attentive to inequalities, relationships of power, and researchers
social locations in conceptualizing institutions.
A diversity of approaches will also potentially
result in fewer masculinist constructions of
knowledge predicated on accessing elites.
Our analysis opens a new set of questions yet
unanswered. We are interested to learn more,
for example, about how recent methodological
developments in geography intersect with institutional ethnography, including fast policy
transfer, event ethnography, actor network
theory, and science and technology studies.
While we have mentioned these approaches
in this text, more work remains to be done
as to their productive intersections and divergence from institutional ethnography as it
has been practiced by geographers and other
social scientists.
We have argued for institutional ethnography. Rather than suggest that there is one way
of doing institutional ethnography, our goal has
been to review the range of approaches pursued
by geographers and other scholars and the
potential insights and shortcomings of various
approaches, with the ultimate objective of
broader engagement. Institutions are fundamentally powerful and spatial in nature. As such,
their ethnographic mapping across sites and
scales is essential to advance understandings
of political, economic, and social relations.

18

Progress in Human Geography

Acknowledgements

References

We are grateful to many insightful readers of earlier

drafts of this article who shared feedback and their
own scholarship: Ishan Ashutosh, Mat Coleman,
Isabel Dyck, Roberta Hawkins, Nancy Hiemstra,
Jennifer Hyndman, Vicky Lawson, Keith Lindner,
Jenna Loyd, Jacob Miller, Dominique Moran,
Lawrence Santiago, Nadine Schuurman, Margaret
Walton-Roberts, Richard Wright, and graduate students at the School of Geography and Development
at the University of Arizona. This material is based
upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Award #0847133 (Principal Investigator: Alison Mountz). The research in Ecuador was
supported by a National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant
(#0825763) and by an Inter-American Foundation
Grassroots Development PhD Fellowship.

Anderson K (1991) Vancouvers Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 18751980. Montreal: McGillQueens University Press.
Ashutosh A (2010) Crossing Streets, Crossing Nations:
South Asian Transnational Identities in Toronto.
PhD thesis, Department of Geography, Syracuse
University.
Bebbington A, Guggenheim S, Olson E and Woolcock M
(2004) Exploring social capital debates at the World
Bank. Journal of Development Studies 40(5): 3364.
Bebbington A, Guggenheim S, Olson E and Woolcock M
(2006) The Search for Empowerment: Social Capital as
Idea and Practice at the World Bank. Boulder: Kumarian Press.
Belcher O and Martin LL (2013) Ethnographies of closed
doors: Conceptualising openness and closure in US
immigration and military institutions. Area 45(4):
403410.
Bhungalia L (2013) From the American People: Aid,
Counterinsurgency, and the U.S. National Security
State in Palestine. PhD thesis, Department of Geography, Syracuse University.
Billo E (2012) Competing Sovereignties: Corporate Social
Responsibility, Indigenous Subjectivity, and Ecuador.
PhD thesis, Department of Geography, Syracuse
University.
Billo E (2015) Sovereignty and subterranean resources: An
institutional ethnography of Repsols corporate social
responsibility programs in Ecuador. Geoforum. DOI:
10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.021.
Bosworth M (2005) Doing prison research: Views from
inside. Qualitative Inquiry 11(2): 249264.
Brosius P and Campbell L (2010) Collaborative event ethnography: Conservation and development trade-offs at
the fourth World Conservation Congress. Conservation
and Society 8(4): 245255.
Burawoy M, Blum J, George S, Gille Z, Gowan T, Haney
Riain S and Thayer M
L, Klawiter M, Lopez S, O
(2000) Global Ethnography: Forces, Connections, and
Imaginations in a Postmodern World. Berkeley and
Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Campbell M and Gregor F (2004) Mapping Social Relations: A Primer in Doing Institutional Ethnography.
Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Colloredo-Mansfeld R (2002) Understanding competition in artisan economies. Current Anthropology
43(1): 113137.

Notes
1. Del Casino and co-authors (2000) suggest few differences between institutions and organizations, both
sites of a coalescing of structural relations that
emerge from innovation or habituation of actors
(2000: 525).
2. This position is not unique to IE, but central to feminist
approaches to ethnography and methods more broadly
(cf. McDowell, 1992; Moss, 2002).
3. VandeBerg changed her name to Gilmer between publication of her dissertation and book.
4. We note that Wolford (2010b) used participantobservation extensively in her work with Brazils Landless Peoples Movement (MST). While an ethnography
of a social movement, she does not characterize this
work as institutional ethnography.
5. Kuus (2013: 116) distinguishes further between study
of conceptions of policy in the offices of policymakers
and the effects of those policies in other sites.
6. VandeBerg (2013) creates and analyzes an archive of
some 200 media stories, which are about if not of the
institution she studies.
7. Note that there is overlap across the five approaches
delineated in this typology.
8. Our aim in this figure is to create a typology and provide examples of scholarship that demonstrate these
categories. We do not claim to represent the fullness
or complexity of what these studies actually do and
find.

Billo and Mountz

Corson K and MacDonald KI (2012) Enclosing the global
commons: The convention on biological diversity and
green grabbing. The Journal of Peasant Studies 39(2):
263283.
Del Casino V Jr, Grimes AJ, Hanna SP and Jones JP III
(2000) Methodological frameworks for the geography
of organizations. Geoforum 31: 523538.
Delaney J (2014) Reassembling policy through research:
Reflections on situating policy advocacy through research
and practice. Professional Geographer 66(1): 1824.
DeVault M (2006) Introduction: What is institutional ethnography? Social Problems 53: 294298.
DeVault M (ed.) (2008) People at Work: Life, Power, and
Social Inclusion in the New Economy. New York: NYU
Press.
DeVault M and McCoy L (2002) Institutional ethnography: Using interview to investigate ruling relations.
In: Smith D, Campbell M, Devault M and Diamond T
(eds) Institutional Ethnography as Practice. Lanham:
Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 1544.
Driver F (1991) Political geography and state formation:
Disputed territory. Progress in Human Geography
15(3): 268280.
Duncan N and Duncan J (2009) Doing landscape interpretation. In: DeLeyser D, Herbert S, Aitken S, Crang
M and McDowell L (eds) The SAGE Handbook of
Qualitative Geography. London: SAGE, pp.
225248.
Dyck I (1988) Towards a Geography of Motherhood: An
Analysis of the Constitution of Safe Spaces for Children. PhD thesis, Department of Geography, Simon
Fraser University.
Dyck I (1997) Dialogue with difference: A tale of two
studies. In: Jones JP, Nast H and Roberts S (eds)
Thresholds in Feminist Geography: Difference, Methodology, Representation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 183202.
Emerson R, Fretz R and Shaw L (1995) Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Englund H and Leach J (2000) Ethnography and the metanarratives of modernity. Current Anthropology 41(2):
225248.
Ferguson J and Gupta A (2002) Spatializing states: Toward
an ethnography of neoliberal governmentality. American Ethnologist 2: 9811002.
Flowerdew R (ed.) (1982) Institutions and Geographical
Patterns. London: Croom Helm.

19
Foucault M (1970) The Order of Things: An Archaeology
of Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault M (1991) Governmentality. In: Burchell G, Gordon C and Miller P (eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies
in Governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, pp. 87104.
Foucault M (1995) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the
Prison. New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault M (1997) Society Must be Defended: Lectures
at the Colle`ge de France, 19751976. New York: St.
Martins Press.
Geertz C (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected
Essays. New York: Basic Books.
Gibson-Graham JK (1996) The End of Capitalism (as We
Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline
of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Gilmer B (2014) Political Geographies of Piracy: Constructing Threats and Containing Bodies in Somalia.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goffman E (1961) Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation
of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York:
Anchor Books.
Goldman M (2004) Ecogovernmentality and other transnational practices of a green World Bank. In: Peet R and
Watts M (eds) Liberation Ecologies: Environment,
Development, Social Movements. London: Routledge,
pp. 153177.
Goldman M (2005) Imperial Nature: The World Bank and
Struggles for Social Justice in the Age of Globalization.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Grove K (2013) From emergency management to managing emergence: A genealogy of disaster management in
Jamaica. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103(3): 570588.
Gupta A (1995) Blurred boundaries: The discourse of corruption, the culture of politics, and the imagined state.
American Ethnologist 22(2): 375402.
Hansen TB and Stepputat F (2001) Introduction: States of
imagination. In: Hansen TB and Stepputat F (eds)
States of Imagination: Ethnographic Explorations of
the Postcolonial State. Durham and London: Duke
University Press, pp. 138.
Hart G (2004) Geography and development: Critical ethnographies. Progress in Human Geography 28(1):
91100.

20
Herbert S (1997) Policing Space: Territoriality and the
Los Angeles Police Department. London and Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Herbert S (2000) For ethnography. Progress in Human
Geography 24(4): 550568.
Heyman J (1995) Putting power in the anthropology of
bureaucracy: The Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Mexico-United States border. Current
Anthropology 36(2): 261287.
Hiemstra N (2011) The View from Ecuador: Security, Insecurity, and Chaotic Geographies of U.S. Migrant
Detention and Deportation. PhD thesis, Department
of Geography, Syracuse University.
Houston S (2011) Ethnography of the City: Creativity,
Sustainability, and Social Justice in Seattle, Washington. PhD thesis, Department of Geography, Syracuse
University.
Hyndman J (1996) Culture, Gender, & Power in United
Nations Refugee Camps: The Case of Somali Refugees
in Kenya. PhD thesis, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia.
Hyndman J (2000) Managing Displacement. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Iskander N (2010) Creative State: Forty Years of Migration and Development Policy in Morocco and Mexico.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Jackson P (1989) Maps of Meaning. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Jessop B (2001) Institutional re(turns) and the strategicrelational approach. Environment and Planning A 33:
12131235.
Kariya P (1993) The Department of Indian Affairs and
northern development: The culture-building process
within an institution. In: Duncan J and Ley D (eds)
Place/Culture/Representation. London and New York:
Routledge, pp. 187204.
Katz C (1996) The expeditions of conjurers: Ethnography,
power, and pretense. In: Wolf D (ed.) Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork. Boulder: Westview Press, pp.
170184.
King B (2009) Commercializing conservation in South
Africa. Environment and Planning A 41(2): 407424.
Kuus M (2013) Foreign policy and ethnography: A sceptical intervention. Geopolitics 18(1): 115131.
Larner W and Laurie N (2010) Travelling technocrats,
embodied knowledges: Globalising privatization in telecoms and water. Geoforum 41: 218226.
Lewis D and Mosse D (eds) (2006) Development Brokers
and Translators. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.

Progress in Human Geography

Ley D (1974) Black Inner City as Frontier Outpost.
Washington, DC: Association of American
Geographers.
Ley D (1983) A Social Geography of the City. New York:
Harper & Row.
Lindner K (2012) Returning the Commons: Resource
Access and Environmental Governance in San Luis,
Colorado. PhD thesis, Department of Geography, Syracuse University.
Loyd J, Mitchelson M and Burridge A (eds) (2012) Beyond
Walls and Cages: Prisons, Borders, and Global Crisis.
Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Martin R (2000) Institutional approaches in economic
geography. In: Sheppard E and Barnes T (eds) A
Companion to Economic Geography. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 7793.
Martin L and Secor A (2014) Towards a post-mathematical
topology. Progress in Human Geography 38(3):
420438.
McDowell L (1992) Doing gender: Feminisms, feminists
and research methods in human geography. Transaction of the Institute of British Geographers 17(4):
399416.
Mitchell T (2002) Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-politics,
Modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mitchelson M (2013) Up the River (from Home):
Where Does the Prisoner Count on Census Day?
In: Moran D, Gill N and Conlon D (eds) Carceral
Spaces. Surrey: Ashgate, pp. 7792.
Moran D, Gill N and Conlon D (eds) (2013) Carceral
Spaces: Mobility and Agency in Imprisonment and
Migrant Detention. Surrey: Ashgate.
Moran D, Piacentini L and Pallot J (2012) Disciplined
mobility and carceral geography: Prisoner transport in
Russia. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 37(3): 446460.
Moran D, Piacentini L and Pallot J (2013) Liminal transcarceral space: Prison transportation for women in the
Russian Federation. In: Moran D, Gill N and Conlon
D (eds) Carceral Geographies: Mobility and Agency
in Imprisonment and Migrant Detention. Surrey: Ashgate, pp. 109124.
Moss P (ed.) (2002) Feminist Geography in Practice:
Research and Methods. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mountz A (2007) Smoke and mirrors: An ethnography of
the state. In: Sheppard E, Barnes T, Peck J and Tickell
A (eds) Politics and Practice in Economic Geography.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 3848.

Billo and Mountz

Mountz A (2010) Seeking Asylum: Human Smuggling and
Bureaucracy at the Border. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Mountz A, Coddington K, Catania RT and Loyd J (2013)
Conceptualizing detention: Mobility, containment,
bordering, and exclusion. Progress in Human Geography 37(4): 522541.
Mullings B (1999) Insider or outsider, both or neither:
Some dilemmas of interviewing in a cross-cultural setting. Geoforum 30: 337350.
Nader L (1972) Up the anthropologist: Perspectives
gained from studying up. In: Hymes D (ed.) Reinventing Anthropology. New York: Random House,
pp. 284311.
Naples N (1997) The new consensus on the gendered
social contract: The 19871988 US congressional hearings on welfare reform. Signs: Journal of Women in
Cultural and Society. 22(4): 907943.
Nelson D (1999) A Finger in the Wound: Body Politics in
Quincentennial Guatemala. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Nelson D (2001) Stumped identities: Body image, bodies
politic, and the Mujer Maya as prosthetic. Cultural
Anthropology 16(3): 314353.
Nevins J (2002) Operation Gatekeeper. New York and
London: Routledge.
Olsson G (1974) The dialectics of spatial analysis. Antipode 6(3): 5062.
Pahl R (1977) Managers, technical experts and the state:
Forms of mediation, manipulation and dominance in
urban and regional development. In: Harloe M (ed.)
Captive Cities: Studies in the Political Economy of Cities and Regions. London and New York: John Wiley &
Sons, pp. 4960.
Painter J (1995) Politics, Geography and Political Geography. London and New York: Arnold.
Peck J and Theodore N (2010) Mobilizing policy: Models,
methods, and mutations. Geoforum 41(2): 169174.
Perreault T (2003a) A people with our own identity:
Toward a cultural politics of development in Ecuadorian Amazonia. Environment and Planning D: Society
and Space 21: 583606.
Perreault T (2003b) Changing places: Transnational
networks, ethnic politics, and community development in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Political Geography 22: 6188.
Philo C and Parr H (2000) Institutional geographies: Introductory remarks. Geoforum 31: 513521.

21
Pratt G (2000) Research performances. Environment and
Planning D, Society & Space 18(5): 639651.
Rodriguez R (2010) Migrants for Export: How the Philippine State Brokers Labor to the World. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Rutherford S (2007) Green governmentality: Insights and
opportunities in the study of natures rule. Progress
in Human Geography 31(3): 291307.
Sadler D and Lloyd S (2009) Neo-liberalising corporate
social responsibility: A political economy of corporate
citizenship. Geoforum 40: 613622.
Santiago L (2013) Spaces of Expertise and Geographies
of Ethics: The International Recruitment and Migration of Health Workers. PhD thesis, Department of
Geography, University of British Columbia.
Sawyer S (2001) Fictions of sovereignty: Of prosthetic
petro-capitalism, neoliberal states, and phantom-like
citizens in Ecuador. The Journal of Latin American
Anthropology 6(1): 156197.
Sawyer S (2004) Crude Chronicles: Indigenous Politics,
Multinational Oil, and Neoliberalism in Ecuador. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Schoenberger E (1997) The Cultural Crisis of the Firm.
Cambridge: Blackwell.
Schuurman N (2008) Database ethnographies using social
science methodologies to enhance data analysis and
interpretation. Geography Compass 2(5): 15291548.
Sharma A and Gupta A (eds) (2006) Anthropology of the
State: A Reader. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Smith D (1987) The Everyday World as a Problematic: A
Feminist Sociology. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Smith D (2006) Introduction. In: Smith D, Campbell M,
Devault M and Diamond T (eds) Institutional Ethnography as Practice. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield,
pp. 111.
Stacey J (1988) Can there be a feminist ethnography?
Womens Studies International Forum 11(1): 2127.
Suarez D and Corson C (2013) Seizing center stage: Ecosystem services, live, at the Convention on Biological
Diversity! Human Geography 15(1): 6479.
The Economist (2008) Just good business: A special report
on corporate social responsibility. Jan 1925 (386):
8563.
VandeBerg BL (2013) Securitizing Piracy: Development,
Security and the Containment of Piracy off the Coast
of Somalia. PhD thesis, Department of Geography,
University of Toronto.

22
Visweswaran K (1994) Fictions of Feminist Ethnography.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Wainwright J (2008) Decolonizing Development: Colonial
Power and the Maya. Malden: Blackwell.
Watts M (2001) Development ethnographies. Ethnography 2(2): 283300.
Watts M (2002) Alternative modern-development as cultural geography. In: Anderson K, Domosh N, Pile S and
Thrift N (eds) The Handbook of Cultural Geography.
London: SAGE, pp. 433454.
Watts M (2005) Righteous Oil?: Human rights, the
oil complex and corporate social responsibility.

Progress in Human Geography

Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30(1):
373407.
Winkelman WJ and Halifax ND (2007) Power is only skin
deep: An institutional ethnography of nurse-driven outpatient psoriasis treatment in the era of clinic web sites.
Journal of Medical Systems 31: 131139.
Wolford W (2010a) Participatory democracy by default:
Land reform, social movements and the state in Brazil.
Journal of Peasant Studies 37(1): 91109.
Wolford W (2010b) This Land is Ours Now: Social Mobilizations and the Meanings of Land in Brazil. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.