Cooren, F. (2018). Acting for, with, and through: A relational perspective on agency in MSF’s organizing. In B. H. J. M. Brummans (Ed.), The agency of organizing: Perspectives and case studies (pp. 142–169). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315622514-7.
Key takeaways
Registered from metadata, not a reading. What the record knows of the chapter is what Bencherki, Brummans & Vézy (LIT-1902) report of it (pp. 1359–1361):
- It analyses a 2005 meeting in the Democratic Republic of the Congo between Robert, an MSF representative, and Drs Tinga and Raaga of the local health department, who ask for MSF’s surgeon to train Congolese physicians (pp. 151–160 of the chapter).
- It shows that not only the three people act, but also MSF, the health department, and the principles and feelings that “make them say and do things”.
- It reads Robert’s pause and gaze at the ceiling as an uneasiness expressing itself through him, before a “dispreferred” response, a refusal (chapter p. 154).
- It ends its analysis before Robert comes round to the proposal.
Why this is here
It is the data of LIT-1902’s illustration. The parent presents “a simplified version of Cooren’s excerpt”, with nonverbal detail added from the video and nine further lines (68–76) beyond where Cooren stops (p. 1359). It says Cooren’s analysis, while it “opens up the conversational scene to agencies that are usually excluded”, “focuses on who or what is acting” (p. 1361), and that it reads Robert’s hesitation through social norms of preference where the parent reads it affectively (p. 1362).
Whether that is faithful could not be checked. Two points to check when a copy comes. The parent’s own summary already credits Cooren with uneasiness “express[ing] itself through him”, which is close to its own “affect expressing itself” vocabulary, so the gap may be narrower than “who or what is acting” suggests. And the parent says Robert “seems to decline at first” in Cooren’s chapter and that his later opening “is not shown” there (p. 1359): the chapter should be checked for whether it presents the meeting as ending in refusal. The transcript itself should be compared line by line with the parent’s pp. 1360–1361.