Search results

This paper explores how conflicting institutional logics shape the behaviors of macro- and micro-level actors in their use of a calculative practice. Thereby, this paper explains how quantification can undermine the intended purpose of a governance system based on a single number.

The study draws upon the literature on calculative practices and institutional logics to present the case of how a single number—specifically the conversion factor for Atlantic Cod, established by macro-level actors for the purposes of governance within the Norwegian fishing industry—is interpreted and used by micro-level actors in the industry. The study is based on documents, field observations and interviews with fishers, landing facilities, and control authorities.

The use of the conversion factor, while intended to protect fish stock and govern industry actions, does not always align with the institutional logics of micro-level actors. Especially during the winter season, these actors may seek to serve their interests, leading to potential system gaming. The reliance on a single number that overlooks seasonal nuances can motivate unintended behaviors, undermining the governance system’s intentions.

Integrating the literature on calculative practices with an institutional logics perspective, this study offers novel insights into the challenges of using quantification for the governance of complex industries. In particular, the paper reveals that when the logics of macro- and micro-level actors conflict in a single-number governance system, unintended outcomes arise due to a domination of the macro-level logics.

The current study sought to better understand the factors that contribute to whether officers value procedurally just interaction techniques and contribute to the limited research examining how the effects of warrior and guardian mentalities may vary based on individual officer characteristics.

Survey data collected from patrol officers in two geographically different and ethnically diverse United States police departments allowed for an examination of the generality of warrior and guardian orientations on perceptions of procedural justice across gender, race and/or ethnicity, military service, education, and experience.

There was a largely invariant effect of the mentalities on officer attitudes toward procedural justice, except for officers of color. In this sample, the guardian effect on prioritizing procedural justice was stronger for officers of color than for White officers.

This study sheds light on our theoretical understanding of the warrior/guardian framework and offers practical implications for police leaders and policymakers in their effort to improve police-community relations.