An institutional approach to housing studies

Paul Luken and Suzanne Vaughan

Paul Luken Dept. of and of West Georgia Carrollton, GA 30118 [email protected]

Suzanne Vaughan Dept. of Social and Behavioral Sciences Arizona State University West P.O. Box 37100 Phoenix, AZ 85069-7100 [email protected]

In this paper we discuss how institutional ethnography, a feminist materialist method of inquiry, can be use to study the social institution of housing. We begin providing a brief description of institutional ethnography and then recount how we are applying this approach in a study of changes in housing in the United States in the twentieth century. For purposes of illustration, we summarize two of our investigations.1 We conclude with a few remarks on the value of institutional ethnography to housing studies .

What Is Institutional Ethnography?2

Institutional ethnography is a method of sociological inquiry that was founded by sociologist Dorothy Smith in the 1970s. She describes it as an outgrowth of the women’s movement in North America at the time. She observed that there were two different modes of consciousness active in her double life of running a household and being a mother, and her life as a scholar in the university. The life in the home was one of particularities and real people; whereas the life of

1 To date most studies using institutional ethnography have been in the areas of , , and social services. To our knowledge, Susan Turner (1995; 2002) is the only other research to use this approach to study housing-related social relations. 2 The term “institutional ethnography” is first used by Dorothy Smith in a 1986 article in Resources for Feminist Research and the approach is further developed in chapters of her The Everyday World As Problematic: A (1987) and other works. This section relies heavily on her 2002 chapter in Tim May’s in Action.

the university was impersonal and the social relations were extra-local. According to Smith, “The consciousness that organizes household and child care is highly attentive to particularities of the local setting -- the physical layout of the household, taking in the state of the floors, putting clean sheets on the bed, checking the refrigerator to see what’s there for supper, calling the kids in from play to get ready for . It is a consciousness that coordinates multiple particular details, cues and initiatives, involving relationships with particularized others -- children, partner, neighbors, and so on.” (2002, 17) In contrast, the consciousness that is organized in a university setting is one that participates in a discourse in which particular others appear as printed names in text, “or positioned as members of definite classes of others -- colleagues, students, supervisors, administrators and others.” (2002, 17)

Smith states that in the women’s movement of the ‘70s she learned to take her own experience as a woman as the basis for how she could know the world. She also realized, as did many others involved in the women’s movement, that the academic disciplines were written almost exclusively by men and from their viewpoint. Furthermore, the disciplines, sociology in Smith’s case, claimed objectivity while excluding women, their knowledge, and their concerns, from the discourse. Smith determined that it was necessary to remake sociology from the ground up. It would be a sociology for women, one which would discover the social relations which shaped women’s everyday experiences but which are not wholly invisible to them.

In contrast to other sociologies, institutional ethnography does not take its problems or questions from the various sociological of thought and research. Rather, inquiry begins with people’s lives and from the standpoint of their experience of the actualities in their everyday living. However, it is not limited to description of the social of people’s activities or their expressions of their experiences. These are important for institutional ethnography. Smith would say that they are “essential.” Yet, people’s everyday activities are permeated and organized by social relations that coordinate activities at multiple sites. The sociologist’s task is to discover these relations and then map them so that people can see how their lives and activities are connected with the lives and work of others, others of whom we are often unaware. Our everyday worlds are not self-contained, although we do have intimate knowledge of them. They are coordinated with unknown others who are acting elsewhere and at other times. This becomes the problematic of institutional ethnography.

It takes up a stance in people’s experience in the local sites of their bodily being and seeks to discover what can be grasped from within that experience, namely the social relations that are implicit in its organization. The project calls on us as sociologists to discover how the everyday/everynight worlds we participate in are being put together in people’s local activities, including, of course, our own. It conceives of the social as actually happening among people who are situated in particular places at particular times and not as “meaning” or “norms.” It draws on people’s own good knowledge of their everyday/everynight worlds and does not substitute the expert’s “” for what people know in the doing. The aim is to create a sociology for people rather than of people. (Smith 2002, 19)

Institutional ethnography recognizes that people are expert practitioners in their everyday lives. As Smith says, “they know how they go about doing things” (2002, 21). Institutional

2

ethnographers begin by learning from people and then they locate people’s accounts by showing how they are connected with social relations beyond their immediate experience.

Social reality is viewed as rising within people’s activities. Included in these activities are , thinking, concepts, beliefs, ; and the social is the ongoing coordination of these activities. How this coordinating occurs remains to be discovered. Institutional ethnography assumes that people experience and understand things differently; therefore, those forms of social organization that generalize and objectify – overriding ’ perspectives – are of special interest. Texts are fundamental to these generalized forms of consciousness. Objectification and generalization are themselves practices of people and they are locally achieved. “In a sense the collection of data and their analysis aim at discovering just how the institutional is being produced by people at work in the particularities of their everyday/everynight lives” (Smith 2002, 23).

The topics of the research are generally some issues or problems that people experience in their everyday lives, but the starting point should be people’s actual experiences. Research might begin with one’s own experience or with another particular actor because institutional organization can be found in what people have to say about their activities. Other people can also be interviewed, and they will provide different perspectives. A “standpoint sample” is developed from multiple interviews. It is important to keep in that the population is not being studied; rather, the focus is on institutional processes. Another challenge of interviewing is to get people to talk about the actual work that they do. Respondents often utilize institutional discourse, that is, they employ ideological language that generalizes rather than particularizes. The researchers learn from one interview and there is a progression to the next. Often different questions are asked of each of the respondents (See DeVault and McCoy 2000). Interview transcripts are analyzed for what people say about the work that they do, particularly work that connects them with work that others are doing elsewhere. Analysis involves discovering how work that is performed at one site connects with work which is performed at other sites. Language is very important in his analysis. Social relations, Smith says, “are already implicit in how people talk about their work” (2002, 31).

Texts, especially those that are replicable and standardized, are commonly examined in institutional ethnography research since they coordinate people’s activities in local settings. They mediate social relations and coordinate the doings of people translocally. Texts, as they are taken up in local settings, enter actions and organize actions at multiple sites. While one party in the text is fixed, the reader is not. The reader is active in interpreting and acting upon the text. Furthermore, in many work processes one textual step is followed up by another textual step that is dependent upon the prior step and the anticipated next step, and so on. Thus, forms are filled out and reports are generated in manners that transform particular events into generalized forms that are critical in coordinating the work of others. Such regulation through texts is widespread in modern, literate , and it is an important consideration in many institutional ethnographic investigations.

3

Studying Changes in the Social Institution of Housing: Applying Institutional Ethnography

In 1992 we began a study of changes in the social institution of housing from the standpoint of women. As subjects in this research we selected five women who lived in the Phoenix metropolitan area at the time of the interviews. All of the women were at least 60 years of age and had lived alone for at least six months. After an initial contact, we interviewed the women on at least four occasions for approximately two hours per session. Throughout the interviews we worked with the women to generate their oral housing histories. We tape-recorded and transcribed approximately 10 to 12 hours of conversation with each woman. Our interviews focused on their housing experiences throughout their lives. Aside from learning about the types of places in which they resided and people with whom they lived, we were interested primarily in the activities that they performed, the work that they did to acquire and to maintain their homes. We probed to learn the details of these activities: what they did, their knowledge of these activities, how they knew to do them, and the people with whom they worked.

In our first examination of the transcripts we dealt with them as would many other qualitative researchers, that is, we looked for themes and topics about which the women spoke, and we created analytical files based on these topics. However, our research activities significantly diverge from qualitative researchers at this point. As institutional ethnographers our goal was not to create generalized statements about the subjects. Rather, we aimed to explicate actual experiences of particular women. In order to do this we worked to build upon the knowledge that the women already had of their experiences. While the oral histories were important sources of data for us, our task was to move beyond the histories in order to discover the social determinants of the women’s housing experiences. For the purposes of illustration we briefly summarize two of our investigations.

Case 1: Moving to a Retirement Community3

In the first investigation we explicate one woman’s experience of moving from Youngstown, Ohio, to the retirement of Sun City, Arizona, in 1978. In doing so we show how her activities are embedded in actual spheres of changing social relations which are textually mediated through advertising. The subject, who we call Ursula Roberts4, spoke of the time when she and her husband saw advertisements about Sun City in the Youngstown, Ohio, newspaper. Her comment led us to the Sun Cities Area Historical to recover from their archives some of the advertisements that she might have seen in the early ‘70s. We also examined earlier ads which we view as textual practices that reconceptualize housing and retirement under advanced in the 1960s. As the Roberts read about, talked about, and acted upon the printed advertisements about Sun City in their local Ohio newspaper, they entered into and connected with relations that were not at the site of their everyday world, but which coordinated their activities and courses of action translocally.

3 This illustration is derived from an article that we published in the Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare (Luken and Vaughan 2003b). 4 For purposes of confidentiality, pseudonyms are used for the subjects of our research.

4

The Del Webb Development (DEVCO), which began construction of Sun City as a suburban housing development in the desert outside of Phoenix, Arizona, in 1959, heavily marketed this project. DEVCO, in conjunction with a locally based advertising firm, Garland Agency, conducted an extensive advertising campaign by producing thematic layouts in local area newspapers and in other newspapers, newsletters, and national magazines. Some of the other publications included the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and such Ohio newspapers as the Columbus Dispatch, the Akron Beacon Journal, and the Youngstown Vindicator. The national magazines, such as Time, Newsweek, Ladies Home Journal, and Readers Digest, carried the ads; and similar images were reproduced over and over again at different sites from 1959 through the 1980’s.

For institutional ethnographers, the ads are not just an ensemble of meaning. The advertisements are part of a course of action, a course which is organized by the text. The ads are designed to produce a visit to Sun City. They invite readers to come and look and make an association between visiting Sun City and deciding to stay and live there. The advertising text do the work of getting prospective homeowners to visit Sun City, where the textual sequence continues in the forms of sales pitches and brochures further describing the location. The fixed physical property of the text gives the appearance of having achieved stasis. When we look at advertisements, we do not see the processes by which they were created. We do not even know who wrote the words or took the pictures or how they came to appear in the newspapers or magazines. When we see ads, they exist in what Smith calls “textual time.” The text appears fixed based on its physicality. However, when the text is taken up, a text-reader relation develops and the often-understood notion of reading as passivity can now be understood as an activity. While nothing changes in the text, Smith says, “[E]ach iteration is the actual local practice of a particular , reading just where she is, for just the what-comes-next that her reading initiates” (Smith 1999, 75).

However, the Roberts relocation to an age-based community was predicated upon significant changes in the institutions of housing and retirement that began around 1960 in the United States. In fact, we discovered that DEVCO was instrumental in the construction of a new form of housing and the articulation of a new definition of retirement. Through their advertising DEVCO reconceptualized notions of retirement at a time when more Americans were retiring and traditional definition of retirement was largely negative. As Graebner (1980) points out, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with retirement at this time. The problem however was not with retirement itself; rather people did not know how to respond to it. It disrupted the usual routines between work and leisure. Social gerontologists such as Friedman and Havighurst worried that people would not know how to play in old age.

DEVCO referenced this discourse in its advertising. It not only created a textual form of a that promoted a complete separation of work in leisure, but also recast leisure as purposive recreational activity; and this was done in the process of building housing and community. Thus, they broke the historical link between work and leisure and reorganized leisure in relation to housing. Equally important, they constructed the organizational site for the distribution and consumption of leisure. Housing images make up a small part of the advertisements. Instead, an alternative form of retirement and community is being promoted. The new definition of retirement was called “active living.” From the ads we saw that retirement was

5

a time of life that was valuable, that is, “golden,” “treasured,” and for people who enjoy freedom from paid employment. Further, it was for those who were able to commit themselves to life filled with low impact sports, artistic or other leisure activities. But active living is also defined in relationship to Sun City. In order to enjoy this new way of life one must also purchase a home in Sun City. They also constructed a category of “America’s Senior Citizen” that was able- bodied, heterosexual, white, middle-income, Christian couples unencumbered by children.

“Active Living” also involves the work Ursula Roberts does of producing herself to realize the textual image of “active living.” The discourse creates the motivational structures which return purchasers again and again – buying leisure in the form of housing, greens fees, community assessments, vacation packages, maintenance fees, etc. The Roberts both enter practices ordered by the text and are active participants in its relations. As Sun City residents they practice active living separated from “work ” as an able-bodied, white, middle-income couple. They work actively to retire by taking up golf, bridge, and vacationing. They coordinate their activities with others and experience features of that organizational form which does, however, present problems or contradictions in their everyday world. For example we learned that Al Roberts was dissatisfied interacting solely with older people and Ursula later found it to be a challenge living as a widow in a coupled community.

Case Two: The Organizational Practices of “Living Alone”5

As mentioned earlier, when we conducted our research we selected women who had been living alone for at least six months. Yet, in the first meeting with the first subject, Edna Kepler, we learned that there was more to “living alone” than we had realized. She pointed out that she might not, in her words, “technically live alone.” She stated that her grandson, Andy, worked for the phone company, work that kept him out of town most of the time. Yet he spent one or two weekends a month in Edna’s apartment. She was quick to add that she is not dependent on Andy for anything: “He could move out at any time. It would be fine with me. My work would be lighter. It’s kinda helpful to him right now ‘cause I’m totally independent from him and it’s a help to him right now trying to get started.” Edna’s account points to the disjuncture between the of living alone and her lived experience and she brought the problematic to our attention. As we continued our research and interviewed other women, the category “living alone” as used by the U.S. Census Bureau, housing researchers, social workers, and others, unraveled.

Ursula Roberts recalled a time when she and her husband were separated for six months while they were moving from one city to another. She described herself as living alone at that time. We find this significant because housing research tends to ignore what Smith calls “the episodic nature of women’s lives” (Smith 1987, 97) and constructs living arrangements as an atemporal, universal phenomenon. Another woman, Olive Jackson, contended that she knew something about living alone from her early when she was bedridden over one winter:

I was confined to bad for about six months because I get acute pleurisy. They thought I had TB. That was the way I was diagnosed. So I was put into bed and had to stay there.

5 This example is drawn from an article published in The Sociological Quarterly (Luken and Vaughan 2003a).

6

That was all day long and I had to stay there alone. My husband came home at night and fixed me something to eat. And I had a dear friend came down in the morning about 9:30 or 10:00 and gave me a sponge bath and fixed me something to eat for lunch. My husband was working nights. He was working from 4:00 in the afternoon to 12:00 at night. I was alone all day and all night, too, in bed. And I learned a lot about living alone.

Housing researchers would classify her experience as “living with spouse” because of the assumed relations in marriage; Olive’s words tell us that one can live alone when gender and class relations organize the exigencies of work of spouses and neighbors. Another subject, Thelma Hay, had a similar experience. She lived alone while her husband was hospitalized prior to his death. In each instance the women recount experiences that challenge the construction of living alone in the textual discourse on housing and living arrangements.

The lack of fit between the narratives of living alone by these four women and the scholarly discourse is not simply a technical problem to be resolved by improved methods of data collection. It is an ideological move that transposes and subdues women’s knowledge to the categories of the housing discourse. Descriptions of elderly women living alone in the housing discourse are not merely partial, incomplete, or discordant accounts of everyday life. Rather, their significance lies in the relationship of the textual discourse to the organization of the administrative, bureaucratic apparatus. As noted by Adele Mueller, “This is a political terrain on which the official apparatus claims power as the principal actor and subordinates women to its interest and intentions…. [The housing enterprise] does not conceal or justify power; it accomplishes it. Such categories are integral elements in how bureaucratic procedures go forward, how state apparatuses operate, and thus how the governing of society is carried out” (1995, 103-104).

Transforming women’s experience into policy categories activates bureaucratic procedures of control. In this process women become accountable to the categories of the administrative apparatus, rather than the reverse. We saw this in the life of Nita Rodriguez who, in later life, moved in with her daughter and son-in- after her house was burglarized. At that time she applied for Section 8 housing assistance. However, an underlying requirement to receive the subsidy was that she could no longer live in the same household with them since the household income was too high. It was necessary for her to move to a new apartment by herself. Nita made herself into someone who fit the state bureaucratic categories.

Moving beyond the interview transcripts, we discovered that the popular literature reproduces discourse about “living alone” and connects with dominant practices of subordination and control. In the popular literature living alone is written as a social phenomenon correlated with independence, adjustment, depression, risk of institutionalization, use of services, need for assistance, economic resources, functional ability, kin availability, and so on. Journalists, practitioners, policymakers, and advocates for the elderly transform older women living alone and their children into a gendered social problem to be addressed, managed, commodified, and profited from within taken-for-granted capitalistic economic arrangements.

Among certain practicing professions, such a social work and nursing, “living arrangements” appears on intake and needs assessment forms. Practitioners use the category as an indicator of

7

someone “at risk” or in need of special health or social services. The recent article in a human services journal summarizes the role social workers should play in creating supportive housing environments for the elderly: “First, they can encourage aged residents to accept and receive services that will enable them to live independently. Second, they can collaborate with housing managers to create responsive housing environments for their elderly tenants” (Ivry 1995, 76). Additionally, elderly people living alone are viewed as a for “alternative housing” by architectural, construction, and money lending . Finally, several companies that provide “assisted living” are rapidly expanding, as are the number of assisted living centers (Diesenhouse 1993; Nordheimer 1996).

Living alone as an objectification, as a static entity, hides the work elderly women do – their relations with other people and with material things. As a category, living alone exists in relation to other values of “living arrangements” and other variables in equations. In describing what counts and does not count as “living alone,” the textual discourse, as the official knowledge about elderly women living alone, tells us of the generalized, shared experience of women. The textual discourse diverges from a sociology for women that extricates living alone as a way of living, with actors embedded in social relations. The women we spoke with informed us that living alone involves many things: keeping busy, seeing members, avoiding family members, taking care of finances, developing new friendships, managing the household, seeing to home repairs, arranging for transportation, dating again, searching for a home that is safe and affordable, shopping, cooking, cleaning, and protecting. The oral histories made clear to us that living alone involves a lot of emotional work as well. This involves grieving, coping with fears of burglaries and overcoming loneliness.

Our reading of the textual discourse on elderly women living alone indicates that it is often linked to the ideology of independence or independent living. These discourses are united through their focus on managing, organizing, coordinating, and profiting from the elderly population living alone. Many writers equate living alone with independence for elderly, unmarried people.

The women’s narratives, on the other hand, reproduce and challenge the schemata in different ways. Often they take on the “language in text” directly. For example Edna would speak of a time when she lived with her adult children, but she always paid room and board: “I paid them, I always felt independent enough to pay my own way.” Similarly Olive does not connect independence with living arrangements. On the one hand, she denies that she’s independent because she relies on other people to assist her due to her physical limitations. On the other hand, she knows that she has a trait that keeps her going: “I can’t figure out how I could be so independent and be so ill. I guess I have an indomitable will of some kind. I would have to be pretty strong or I wouldn’t be here.” Ursula views independence in terms of being able to take care of herself, in contrast to the men she dates who want someone to do their cooking, laundry, and other stuff. Both Nita and Thelma use the dominant discourse on independence in their narratives, concluding that independence is living alone, but in doing so articulate the power of gender and class relations to organize their lives. Nita describes how she became a Section 8 client and how living alone is not being told what to do or having to account to anyone for her actions. Thelma notes that independence is living without a companion in one’s home, especially overnight, while avoiding her son’s scolding for doing so.

8

Living alone and living independently take on specific characteristics for elderly women under contemporary U.S. capitalistic social relations. In the textual discourse, both elderly individuals and were treated as economic units, and consumers of housing stock and related services. The ideology claims that through the purchase of specific housing and services one also acquires independence. Within this discourse, bankers and developers, by proposing, buildings, and marketing assisted living centers, are engaged in creating new ways of living alone and in transforming the meaning of independence. Independence is transformed into a commodity by the capitalistic housing enterprise: one is as independent as one can afford to be. The state is implicit in the development of this ideology through its policies and practices that have fostered private over public housing, ownership over leasing, and private financing construction of housing since the New Deal. Additionally, specific housing policies have been established that are targeted to the elderly population, and the state continues to organize and coordinate the elderly as a housing market through research funding.

The dominant textual discourse on housing organizes, generalizes, and aims to manage the lives elderly women living alone under capitalist arrangements by incorporating them and other family members into current socioeconomic relations. But one should not misconstrue the discourse as having an overriding power to determine the processes of living alone in local settings and to see this power as essentially at the sole disposal of the various agents of the housing enterprise. The relation between textual discourse and local practices is not causal. Rather older women are active, skilled, deliberative, and decisive. They are neither duped nor foolish (Smith 1993, 203). Older women in their everyday world make choices among alternatives – of living alone, with family members, in assisted living centers, and so on – yet they are excluded from the ruling relations that establish these options and maintain gender and class relations in housing. Frustrations and contradictions experienced by older women living alone are regarded in the official discourse as individualized problems rather than as features of the contemporary social organization of housing and the discursive practices surrounding independence. It is on this basis that programs, housing projects, sales campaigns, and public policies are designed and implemented that greatly affect older women’s lives. Not only does the textual discourse isolate and name women living alone as suffering from the “problem” of old age, but it authorizes government bureaucracies, service providers, and private , to be the sole holders of the solutions through the products and services that they can provide. Constructing older women living alone as a social problem reinforces ruling relations and reorganizes the political basis of social action by disassociating women from class and gender relations organized extra-locally, and it ignores older women’s everyday competence in living alone in a society organized through class and patriarchal gender relations.

Conclusion

We believe that an institutional ethnographic approach to housing studies addresses some of the limitations of previous research. First, in an earlier review of housing research, we noted that the activities of people are largely neglected (Luken and Vaughan 1991). This approach involves acting individuals from the outset and maintains them throughout. The materialist method is grounded in the activities of people and not in the conceptual frameworks of the social sciences. Attention is given to discovering these everyday activities and exploring with the subjects the

9

work that they do in regard to sheltering. Secondly, this alternative sociology discovers the social relations and social agents actively involved with housing. Investigation begins with the experiences of people and traces how these activities are connected with other agents in the housing enterprise. For example, if the subjects are householders, the agents would be important intermediaries that connect the householders to others, located elsewhere, whose actions shape the experiences of the householders. Thirdly, institutional ethnography treats housing as a social institution. Again, if we were to begin with particular householders, we can see them embedded in a world of realtors, landlords/landladies, building managers, architects, mortgage organizations, developers, contractors, subcontractors, building workers, repairers, the state, urban planners, housing researchers, and so on. The experiences of the householders with regard to their housing are organized and given their character by these relations. Fourthly, the managerial/administrative perspective which dominates the housing discourse becomes a part of the investigation. Institutional ideologies commonly substitute concepts and categories for real work processes and, in doing so, the work processes are hidden. Institutional ethnography allows for a critical examination of housing ideology from the standpoint of particular individuals, bringing new actors, new topics, new relevancies, and new struggles into the housing picture.

References

DeVault, Marge L. and Liza McCoy. 2000. “Institutional Ethnography: Using Interviews to Investigate Ruling Relations.” In Handbook of Interviewing, edited by J.F. Gubrium and J.A. Holstein. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Diesenhouse, Susan. 1993. “Housing the Elderly Who Do Not Require Nursing Home Care.” The New York Times, January 3, p.12.

Graebner, W. 1980. A History of Retirement: The Meaning and Function of an American Institution, 1885-1978. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Ivry, Joann. 1995. “Aging in Place: The Role of Geriatric Social Work.” Families In Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services 76: 76-85.

Luken, Paul and Suzanne Vaughan. 1991. “Elderly Women Living Alone: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations from a Feminist Perspective.” Housing and Society 18: 37-48.

—. 2003a. “Living Alone in Old Age: Institutionalized Discourse and Women’s Knowledge.” The Sociological Quarterly 44: 109-131.

—. 2003b. “‘Active Living”: Transforming the Organization of Retirement and Housing in the U.S.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 30: 145-169.

Mueller, Adele. 1995. “Beginning in the Standpoint of Women: An Investigation in the Gap between Cholas and ‘Women in Peru.’” Pp. 96-107 in Knowledge, Experience and Ruling Relations: Studies in the Social Organization of Knowledge, edited by M. Campbell and A. Manicom. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Nordheimer, Jon. 1996. “A Mature Housing Market: Growing on Not-Quite-Nursing-Home Care.” The New York Times, April 4, pp. C1, C4.

10

Smith, Dorothy E. 1986. “Institutional Ethnography: A Feminist Method.” Resources for Feminist Research 15: 6-13.

—. 1987. The Everyday World As Problematic: A Feminist Method. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

—. 1993. Text, Facts, and Femininity: Exploring the Relations of Ruling. New York: Routledge.

—. 1999. Writing the Social: Critique, Theory, and Investigations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

—. 2002. “Institutional Ethnography.” Pp. 17-52 in Qualitative Research in Action, edited by T. May. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Turner, Susan M. 1995. ““Rendering the Site Developable: Text and Local Government Decision Making in Land Use Planning.” Pp. 234-248 in Knowledge, Experience and Ruling Relations: Studies in the Social Organization of Knowledge, edited by M. Campbell and A. Manicom. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

—. 2002. “Texts and the Institution of Municipal Government: The Power of Texts in the Public Process of Land Development. Studies in , Organizations and Societies 7: 297-325.

11