🏛️
1
Security Studies - Governance of Security
2024-2025
+ Mandatory Reading Summaries.
+ Practice Exam Questions.
+ Quizlet Link to Practice for Exam.
+Lectures 1-3 + 5 (L4 was the serious game while L6&7 were not important)
Week 1 - 7 of Gov Sec, given at Leiden University.
Good luck on your final!
1
, 2
Table of Contents
Readings..........................................................................................................................................3
Scott (2001): Chapter 3 - Crafting an Analytic Framework I: Three Pillars of Institutions......3
Guala (2016): "Understanding Institutions: The Science and Philosophy of Living Together"6
Zouridis, S., & Leijtens, V. (2020). Bringing the Law Back in: The Law-Government Nexus
in an Era of Network Governance............................................................................................. 8
Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2019). The coming of age of risk governance..................................11
Rena, H. (2019). Police Coordination in Crises: Who knew what, when, where, and why in
managing the terrorist attacks in Oslo and Utøya in 2011?..................................................... 13
Wolbers, J. (2022). Understanding distributed sensemaking in crisis management: The case
of the Utrecht terrorist attack................................................................................................... 15
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.................17
Goodrum, S., Slepicka, J., Woodward, W., & Kingston, B. (2022). Learning from error in
violence prevention: a school shooting as an organizational accident.................................... 19
Durand, R., & Thornton, P. H. (2018). Categorizing Institutional Logics, Institutionalizing
Categories: A review of two literatures................................................................................... 21
Parker, C. F., Nohrstedt, D., Baird, J., Hermansson, H., Rubin, O., & Baekkeskov, E. (2020).
Collaborative crisis management: a plausibility probe of core assumptions...........................24
Moynihan, D. P. (2012). Extra‐network organizational reputation and blame avoidance in
networks: The Hurricane Katrina example.............................................................................. 26
Ansell, C., Boin, A. & Keller, A. (2010). Managing transboundary crises: Identifying
building blocks of an effective response system......................................................................28
Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2015). Dysfunctional institutions? Toward a New Agenda in
Governance Studies................................................................................................................. 30
Catino, M. (2008). A Review of Literature: Individual Blame vs. Organizational Function
Logics in Accident Analysis.................................................................................................... 32
Constantinides, P. (2012). The failure of foresight in crisis management: A secondary
analysis of the Mari disaster.....................................................................................................34
Reason, J. (2000). Human error: models and management..................................................... 35
Guillén, M. (2007). Complex Organizations and Power [a response to Perrow].................... 37
Seibel, W. (2022). Collapsing structures and public mismanagement.....................................39
Practice exam questions.............................................................................................................. 42
Quizlet........................................................................................................................................... 46
Lectures.........................................................................................................................................47
2
, 3
Reading Summary
Lecture 1: The governance turn in safety and security
Scott (2001): Chapter 3 - Crafting an Analytic Framework I: Three Pillars of
Institutions
Introduction
● Institutions: Durable, multifaceted social structures that provide stability and meaning
through symbolic elements, social activities, and material resources.
● Institutions are resistant to change but undergo transformation over time via internal
conflicts and external shocks.
● They operate at various levels, from global systems to interpersonal interactions.
Definition of Institutions
● Institutions are composed of regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive elements
that guide behavior and sustain order in society.
● They combine symbolic systems with behaviors and resources, emphasizing the
importance of both meaning systems and human interaction.
The Three Pillars of Institutions
1. Regulative Pillar
○ Focus: Rule-setting, monitoring, and sanctioning mechanisms.
○ Compliance: Based on experience, driven by fear of sanctions or rewards.
○ Mechanisms: Coercion, backed by formal systems like laws and informal
methods such as social shaming.
○ Logic: Instrumental—actors act to achieve their interests.
○ Indicators: Rules, laws, sanctions, and enforcement institutions like courts.
○ Affective Response: Fear, guilt, or vindication.
○ Legitimacy: Legal sanctioning, authority, and enforcement structures.
2. Normative Pillar
○ Focus: Norms, values, and role expectations guiding behavior.
○ Compliance: Based on social obligation and internalized values.
○ Mechanisms: Normative pressures through socialization and professional
accreditation.
○ Logic: Appropriateness—what one "ought" to do in given roles.
○ Indicators: Certifications, standards, and professional expectations.
○ Affective Response: Shame or honor, often linked to moral evaluation.
○ Legitimacy: Alignment with moral values and social norms.
3
, 4
3. Cultural-Cognitive Pillar
○ Focus: Shared understandings, schemas, and frames of meaning.
○ Compliance: Based on taken-for-grantedness or shared belief systems.
○ Mechanisms: Mimetic processes and cognitive alignment.
○ Logic: Orthodoxy—actions are correct because they align with established
schemas.
○ Indicators: Shared beliefs, cultural narratives, and scripts.
○ Affective Response: Certainty and confidence versus confusion and
disorientation.
○ Legitimacy: Culturally supported and cognitively accepted norms.
Legitimacy
● Legitimacy is critical for organizational survival and comes from adherence to the rules,
alignment with societal values, or congruence with cultural-cognitive schemas.
● It is not merely a resource but a fundamental condition for social existence.
Change and Interplay Among Pillars
● Institutions can shift their dominant pillar of support depending on societal conditions
and pressures.
● Misalignment of pillars can lead to conflict and provide opportunities for institutional
change.
Philosophical Underpinnings
● Ontological Assumptions: Different perspectives on the nature of social reality
(regulative as structural, cultural-cognitive as constitutive).
● Rationality: Ranges from instrumental rationality (maximizing outcomes) to practical
reason shaped by social norms and cognitive schemas.
4
1
Security Studies - Governance of Security
2024-2025
+ Mandatory Reading Summaries.
+ Practice Exam Questions.
+ Quizlet Link to Practice for Exam.
+Lectures 1-3 + 5 (L4 was the serious game while L6&7 were not important)
Week 1 - 7 of Gov Sec, given at Leiden University.
Good luck on your final!
1
, 2
Table of Contents
Readings..........................................................................................................................................3
Scott (2001): Chapter 3 - Crafting an Analytic Framework I: Three Pillars of Institutions......3
Guala (2016): "Understanding Institutions: The Science and Philosophy of Living Together"6
Zouridis, S., & Leijtens, V. (2020). Bringing the Law Back in: The Law-Government Nexus
in an Era of Network Governance............................................................................................. 8
Klinke, A., & Renn, O. (2019). The coming of age of risk governance..................................11
Rena, H. (2019). Police Coordination in Crises: Who knew what, when, where, and why in
managing the terrorist attacks in Oslo and Utøya in 2011?..................................................... 13
Wolbers, J. (2022). Understanding distributed sensemaking in crisis management: The case
of the Utrecht terrorist attack................................................................................................... 15
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.................17
Goodrum, S., Slepicka, J., Woodward, W., & Kingston, B. (2022). Learning from error in
violence prevention: a school shooting as an organizational accident.................................... 19
Durand, R., & Thornton, P. H. (2018). Categorizing Institutional Logics, Institutionalizing
Categories: A review of two literatures................................................................................... 21
Parker, C. F., Nohrstedt, D., Baird, J., Hermansson, H., Rubin, O., & Baekkeskov, E. (2020).
Collaborative crisis management: a plausibility probe of core assumptions...........................24
Moynihan, D. P. (2012). Extra‐network organizational reputation and blame avoidance in
networks: The Hurricane Katrina example.............................................................................. 26
Ansell, C., Boin, A. & Keller, A. (2010). Managing transboundary crises: Identifying
building blocks of an effective response system......................................................................28
Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2015). Dysfunctional institutions? Toward a New Agenda in
Governance Studies................................................................................................................. 30
Catino, M. (2008). A Review of Literature: Individual Blame vs. Organizational Function
Logics in Accident Analysis.................................................................................................... 32
Constantinides, P. (2012). The failure of foresight in crisis management: A secondary
analysis of the Mari disaster.....................................................................................................34
Reason, J. (2000). Human error: models and management..................................................... 35
Guillén, M. (2007). Complex Organizations and Power [a response to Perrow].................... 37
Seibel, W. (2022). Collapsing structures and public mismanagement.....................................39
Practice exam questions.............................................................................................................. 42
Quizlet........................................................................................................................................... 46
Lectures.........................................................................................................................................47
2
, 3
Reading Summary
Lecture 1: The governance turn in safety and security
Scott (2001): Chapter 3 - Crafting an Analytic Framework I: Three Pillars of
Institutions
Introduction
● Institutions: Durable, multifaceted social structures that provide stability and meaning
through symbolic elements, social activities, and material resources.
● Institutions are resistant to change but undergo transformation over time via internal
conflicts and external shocks.
● They operate at various levels, from global systems to interpersonal interactions.
Definition of Institutions
● Institutions are composed of regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive elements
that guide behavior and sustain order in society.
● They combine symbolic systems with behaviors and resources, emphasizing the
importance of both meaning systems and human interaction.
The Three Pillars of Institutions
1. Regulative Pillar
○ Focus: Rule-setting, monitoring, and sanctioning mechanisms.
○ Compliance: Based on experience, driven by fear of sanctions or rewards.
○ Mechanisms: Coercion, backed by formal systems like laws and informal
methods such as social shaming.
○ Logic: Instrumental—actors act to achieve their interests.
○ Indicators: Rules, laws, sanctions, and enforcement institutions like courts.
○ Affective Response: Fear, guilt, or vindication.
○ Legitimacy: Legal sanctioning, authority, and enforcement structures.
2. Normative Pillar
○ Focus: Norms, values, and role expectations guiding behavior.
○ Compliance: Based on social obligation and internalized values.
○ Mechanisms: Normative pressures through socialization and professional
accreditation.
○ Logic: Appropriateness—what one "ought" to do in given roles.
○ Indicators: Certifications, standards, and professional expectations.
○ Affective Response: Shame or honor, often linked to moral evaluation.
○ Legitimacy: Alignment with moral values and social norms.
3
, 4
3. Cultural-Cognitive Pillar
○ Focus: Shared understandings, schemas, and frames of meaning.
○ Compliance: Based on taken-for-grantedness or shared belief systems.
○ Mechanisms: Mimetic processes and cognitive alignment.
○ Logic: Orthodoxy—actions are correct because they align with established
schemas.
○ Indicators: Shared beliefs, cultural narratives, and scripts.
○ Affective Response: Certainty and confidence versus confusion and
disorientation.
○ Legitimacy: Culturally supported and cognitively accepted norms.
Legitimacy
● Legitimacy is critical for organizational survival and comes from adherence to the rules,
alignment with societal values, or congruence with cultural-cognitive schemas.
● It is not merely a resource but a fundamental condition for social existence.
Change and Interplay Among Pillars
● Institutions can shift their dominant pillar of support depending on societal conditions
and pressures.
● Misalignment of pillars can lead to conflict and provide opportunities for institutional
change.
Philosophical Underpinnings
● Ontological Assumptions: Different perspectives on the nature of social reality
(regulative as structural, cultural-cognitive as constitutive).
● Rationality: Ranges from instrumental rationality (maximizing outcomes) to practical
reason shaped by social norms and cognitive schemas.
4
