Discussion Paper No. 154
Revisiting Institutionalization in Civil Society
Organizations: The Necessity of Informalization in
Extreme Contexts

Rashed Al Jayousi, Yuko Nishide

August 23, 2024

TOHOKU MANAGEMENT & ACCOUNTING RESEARCH GROUP
Discussion Paper

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND
MANAGEMENT TOHOKU UNIVERSITY
27-1 KAWAUCHI, AOBA-KU, SENDAI,
980-8576 JAPANRevisiting Institutionalization in Civil Society

Organizations: The Necessity of Informalization in

Extreme Contexts

Rashed Al Jayousi1* and Yuko Nishide1
1* Graduate School of Economics and Management, Tohoku University, 27-1
Kawauchi, Sendai, 980-0862, Miyagi, Japan.

*Corresponding author(s). E-mail(s): rjayousi95@gmail.com;

Abstract

While institutionalization has traditionally been viewed as essential for organizational legitimacy,
the process has often led to the rigidication and NGOization of Civil Society Organizations(CSOs), aligning them more closely with donor agendas and reducing their responsiveness tolocal needs in extreme context. The study introduces informalization as a strategic responseto these challenges, proposing it as a means for CSOs to reclaim their exibility, adaptability, and community-driven focus in times of crises. By analyzing the unique context of PCSOs
operating under Israeli occupation, the research highlights the relevance of informalization inenhancing organizational resilience, fostering innovative solutions, and maintaining a bottom-up
approach in governance. The ndings suggest that informalization, driven by community governance, social innovation, and sustainable organizational transformation, can help organizations
re-institutionalize over time by moving beyond a purely technical focus and integrating values
and practices into their work.
Keywords: CSOs, Institutional theory, Palestine, Extreme contexts, Governance, Knowledge, Social

Innovation

1 Introduction
Institutional theory has long viewed institutionalization as a dynamic process that evolves over time,embedding an organization's history, people, stakeholders, and interests (Scott, 2008). According to
Selznick (2011), institutionalization goes beyond merely meeting technical requirements; it infuses
an organization with values that shape its identity, character, and purpose. Selznick also recognizedthat institutionalization is not a one-size-ts-all concept but varies in degree based on an organization's dened goals and technologies. However, within the context of Civil Society Organizations(CSOs), institutionalization often fails to transcend technical objectives. Instead, it becomes conned to rigid governing structures, shifting from horizontal, board-led organizations to more vertical,

2professionalized roles (Lang, 2012). This shift aligns CSOs with governmental practices, focusing
primarily on eciency and compliance rather than the broader values and missions that originallydened them (Harwood and Creighton, 2008). This contrast raises critical questions about the true
purpose of institutionalization in CSOs: Is it a means to preserve organizational values and identity,or has it become a tool for bureaucratization and professionalization, which is known as a process of
NGOization (Lang, 2012), for donors and governments?
In extreme contextssituations marked by high levels of uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity,
where traditional rules and norms may not apply (Barin Cruz et al., 2016)the institutional environment is destabilized by institutional voids, complexity, and harsh operating conditions (Barin Cruzet al., 2016; Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Mair and Marti, 2009). This volatile environment often
leads to inexible institutional practices, where the norms and regulations set by governments anddonors become hindrances rather than support mechanisms in such extreme settings (Al Jayousi andNishide, 2024; Morrar and Baba, 2022). Consequently, CSOs struggle with limited responsivenessand eectiveness during crises, which ultimately jeopardizes their survival.
Institutionalized CSOs have been accused of aligning more closely with the agendas of governments and donors, leading to increased dependence on aid (Atia and Herrold, 2018; Arda andBanerjee, 2021). Furthermore, they have faced allegations of serving as tools to propagate neoliberal ideology, eectively perpetuating cultural and economic colonialism (Ismail and Kamat, 2018;
Choudry and Kapoor, 2013). As a result of these shifts, CSOs have adopted a more market-driven
approach, emphasizing technical solutions to societal problems (Srinivas, 2009). This trend has
resulted in the de-politicization of CSOs, dampening dissent and resistance (Tartir and Seidel, 2019)and contributing to the fragmentation of social issues and the actors seeking change (Zencirci andHerrold, 2022). Moreover, CSOs have faced challenges in maintaining legitimacy and accountability(Brown, 2008), particularly those reliant on aid, which are increasingly perceived as instruments ofgovernance, subject to the agendas and power dynamics of donors (Atia and Herrold, 2018).
Despite extensive literature over the past two decades on NGOization and its risks, this phenomenon continues to dominate CSOs worldwide, largely due to a lack of viable alternatives. Whilestudies in regions like Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe have highlighted the limitations of NGOization and explored ways of dealing with NGOizaiton, a signicant gap remains in
guiding CSOs on how to eectively move beyond NGOization, particularly in contexts marked byhigh aid dependency, entrenched NGO structures, and historical legacies of conict.
This study seeks to reexamine the concept of institutionalization from both an institutional andmanagerial perspective, exploring how it can be transformed from a foreign, technically imposed
framework into a natural process that reects the unique identity, values, and structures of CSOs
over time. To achieve this, the study introduces the concept of informalization, proposing it as a3

key strategy for CSOs to counteract the rigidities of institutionalization in extreme, volatile environments. The central research question guiding this study is:

How can CSOs eectively respond to

rigid institutionalization in such extreme contexts and reverse the process of NGOization?
The study focuses on the case of Palestinian Civil Society Organizations (PCSOs) where they
operate under the Israeli settler colonialism and occupation since 1967 and currently a 11-month
war on the Gaza Strip. The study of PCSOs addresses the research question, emphasizing the relevance of Jad (2004) concept of NGOization, which critiques the professionalization and co-optationof Palestinian and Arab women's movements. Jad argues that the current NGO structure often prioritizes top-down approaches and donor accountability, hindering sustainable development and failingto address local needs. This critique remains relevant, as NGOization has evolved into a global phenomenon, extending beyond Palestine to the broader Arab world (Jacobsson and Saxonberg, 2016;
Al Jayousi and Nishide, 2024). The signicance of studying PCSOs lies in their unique context shapedby over 57 years of Israeli occupation, which has inuenced their resilience strategies and highlighted
the concept of

Sumud, or steadfastness, as a form of resistance (Marie et al., 2018). However, muchof the research on Palestine has resulted in "grey literature" with little impact, leading to mistrust
among Palestinians (Challand, 2008; Sukarieh and Tannock, 2013; de Bárcena Myrsep, 2022). Therefore, it is imperative to contextualize the ndings within political and social frameworks, particularly
in light of the ongoing conict in Gaza, which underscores the importance of engaged scholarship andcollaboration between academics and practitioners (Van de Ven, 2007). This case study of PCSOs
oers valuable insights into the broader phenomenon of NGOization and its implications for civilsociety in extreme contexts.

2 Literature review: Dening Informalization
Informalization emerges as a critical response to the ineciencies and pressures of institutionalization, particularly within CSOs operating in extreme and volatile environments. The concept of
informalization, although not explicitly dened in earlier institutional theory, has roots in the workof Meyer and Simsa (2018), who discussed how organizations often maintain informal, exible practices to adapt to practical needs despite the rigidities of formal institutional structures. DiMaggio
and Powell (1983) further elaborated on this dual approach, emphasizing how organizations conformto formal structures for legitimacy while retaining informal practices internally to ensure eciency
and adaptability. Greenwood and Hinings (1996) extended these ideas by highlighting the interplay between organizational context and internal dynamics, including informal structures, as pivotal
in achieving radical organizational change. Recent studies, such as those by Andersson (2022) and
Waerder et al. (2022), underscore the importance of informal practices in helping non-prots evolve,
adapt, and build resilience, particularly in response to extreme events.

4

SO to dene informalization,

it is a process by which organizations deliberately adopt informal

practices, networks and structures to enhance exibility, adaptability, and responsiveness in response
to institutional rigidity or extreme environmental conditions. This process involves reducing formalization to create a more dynamic and resilient organizational framework capable of eectively
managing crises and adapting to rapid changes in their context.
Despite the implicit recognition of informal practices in the literature, the concept of informalization as a deliberate organizational strategy remains underexplored. This gap can be attributed
to three main reasons. First, informalization is often associated with unprofessionalism, messiness,and disorganization, particularly during an organization's nascent stages, leading to its perception
as a regression rather than a sustainable strategy. The case of Palestinian CSOs exemplies this,where coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism forced these organizations to adopt formal
structures to comply with donor requirements and gain legitimacy (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983).
Second, informalization is typically viewed as a temporary or transitional phase rather than a longterm organizational approach. Organizations often aim for formalization to secure legitimacy, even if
they continue to rely on informal practices beneath the surface (Andersson, 2022; Meyer and Rowan,1977). Third, informalization is challenging to dene, measure, or evaluate using standard metrics,
making it less attractive for academic research. The diculty in quantifying informal practices has
led to an oversight of their nuanced and context-specic benets, leaving a signicant gap in theliterature.
This study seeks to bridge this gap by theorizing informalization as a process in which organizations deliberately adopt informal practices, structures, and networks to enhance exibility,
adaptability, and operational eciency. Informalization is particularly relevant in response to rigid
institutional environments, extreme contexts, nascent organizational stages, or as a long-term
strategy for building organizational resilience and maintaining a bottom-up approach within theorganizational base. Unlike formal organizations, which earn legitimacy through professionalization and structured hierarchy, informal organizations gain legitimacy through merit-based measures,
evaluated by their social base and the eectiveness of their services. Informalization, therefore, represents a more dynamic, context-specic, and resilient organizational framework capable of eectively
managing crises and adapting to rapid changes in their operational environment. By redening informalization in this way, this study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of how CSOs
can navigate and thrive within the constraints of institutionalization and NGOization, oering a newperspective on organizational adaptability and resilience.

5

3 Methodology
3.1 Research design
The rationale for adopting a single case study is to delve deeply into the nuanced details within
the specic and intricate context of PCSOs operating under Israeli occupation (Todres and Galvin,2005). A single-case study allows for an in-depth exploration, focusing on the richness of contextual
information (Patton, 2002). Previous research on Palestinian civil society has similarly utilized suchdesigns (Morrar and Baba, 2022; Arda and Banerjee, 2021; Harrow and Sola, 2022).
This study adopts a concurrent triangulation design that involves separate collection and analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data, with primary focus on qualitative methods to gain adeeper understanding of the research (Creswell and Clark, 2017; Morse, 1991). Qualitative methodology proves particularly apt for studying exploratory and under-explored phenomena, hence its usage
as the main methodology of this study (Patton, 2002). Concurrently, quantitative methodology is
integrated into a triangulation design as a secondary triangulation method, enabling the collection
and analysis of distinct data sets on the same topic (Creswell and Clark, 2017; Morse, 1991). Thisapproach allows for separate analysis of qualitative and quantitative data, facilitating a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under investigation and ensuring data triangulation ofqualitative data (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). Subsequently, the ndings from both data sets are
merged through interpretation. This case study can be considered unique or extreme due to the protracted Palestinian-Israeli conict, which has endured for decades and is specic to Palestine (Yin,2009). This uniqueness is deemed a strength as it provides insights into individual experiences andinterpretations (Bluhm et al., 2011). Despite its distinctive nature, the author argues that some ofthe ndings can oer transferable insights applicable to other similar contexts, such as war-torn or
fragile states (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011). Moreover, due to the adversity faced by Palestinians, thecontext may compromise the external validity such unique contexts provide rich insights into complex
social phenomena by uncovering underlying factors and mechanisms, as well as human experiences(Stake, 1995). The author suggests that some of the general overarching concepts can oer transferable insights that can be applied in other extreme contexts, with tweaks and modications to ttheir specic missions and environments. Additionally, it was found that qualitative research in complex and evolving contexts, particularly in the case of Palestine, demands a nuanced and reexive
approach, highlighting the potential for such research to yield valuable insights and contribute tobroader understandings within the social sciences (Kacen and Chaitin, 2006).

6

3.2 Empirical Material
A dual qualitative approach was employed to enhance the research's depth and robustness, ensuring
data triangulation and theoretical rigor (Patton, 2002). First, an exhaustive documentary analysis
was conducted, covering materials such as books, reports, policy documents, and databases from
CSOs, shedding light on PCSOs' organizational structures and historical contexts. This approach
deepened the understanding of PCSOs' roles and impacts. The second qualitative method involved
30 semi-structured interviews with top and team management across 23 CSOs, allowing for exible,
in-depth discussions (Bryman, 2016). The interviews, mostly conducted in Arabic with participants'
consent for recording, provided a safe space for critical perspectives. Interviews took place in two
periods: February to April 2022 and September 2023 to January 2024, with 19 male and 11 female
participants. In the quantitative phase, a 51-question survey was developed, covering key dynamics
and organizational details. The survey, cross-validated by experts and oered in Arabic and English,
was completed by 18 participants between February and April 2022, following best practices forquestionnaire design (Dillman et al., 2014).

3.3 Data Analysis
The study employed a concurrent triangulation design, utilizing both thematic analysis and descriptive statistics to co-interpret the data. Qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed separately,with their results merged through co-interpretation. Descriptive statistics identied patterns basedon response frequencies, while thematic analysis provided deeper insights through a ve-phase iterative process. This process began with data familiarization, followed by the development of codes tocapture meaningful data interpretations (Clarke and Braun, 2021). In addition to thematic analysis,
directed content analysis was used to identify knowledge sources for ID organizations, following Powell (2006) framework. This method combined pre-coded themes from existing theories with archival
resources and interview transcripts. Encodable data were analyzed to determine if they represented
new categories, aligning with a critical realist approach (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). These combined approaches provided a comprehensive understanding of governance dynamics, social innovation,knowledge sharing and service provision as well as policy dialogue within the organizations studied.

4 Findings
The results of or thematic analysis show that there it is evident that the process of informalizationof CSOs can be driven by three key strategic pillars: Community Driven Governance, Innovative
Knowledge Sharing, and Sustainable Organizational Transformation. Each of these strategic pillars
is aimed at demonstrating what makes informalization work and identifying which dynamics are

7

important in addressing this transition. Each pillar of these facilitate the process of informalization, ensuring that CSOs are resilient adaptive and deeply connected to their community.

4.1 The Process of Informalization'
Community Driven Governance focuses on the involvement of CSO constituents in decisionmaking processes both internally and externally but also allows ecient responses and structural
exibility. The aim of this pillar is for CSOs that informalize to be not only transparent andaccountable but also to engage with the community informally through informal networks, horizontal organizational structures, inclusive internal governance structures, decentralized governance, andactive policy dialogue. This will help CSOs get support and guidance from their community andstakeholders enhance transparency and improve local trust. Key dynamics within this pillar include:

4.1.1 Community Driven GovernanceCommunity Driven Governance focuses on the involvement of CSO constituents in decision-making
processes both internally and externally but also allows ecient responses and structural exibility.
The aim of this pillar is for CSOs that informalize to be not only transparent and accountable but
also to engage with the community informally through informal networks, horizontal organizational
structures, inclusive internal governance structures, decentralized governance, and active policy dialogue. This will help CSOs get support and guidance from their community and stakeholders enhancetransparency and improve local trust. Key dynamics within this pillar include:

Internal Governance: Ensuring more transparent and inclusive general assemblies, with memberships accessible to the public, can lead to increased oversight of the board of directors and amore diverse board capable of developing strategies that are responsive to community needs. Thisapproach promotes shared ownership and encourages the involvement of community members indecision-making processes.

External Governance and Policy Dialogue: Informalization does not imply severing connections
with donors or the government. Instead, it necessitates reformulating these relationships to achievea more balanced, bottom-up approach. This can be accomplished through balanced power dynamics, wherein CSOs form networks and alliances to enhance their collective impact and negotiating
power with donors, while sharing resources, knowledge, and best practices. CSOs are also expected
to maintain a constructive yet critical relationship with the government to foster civic space andmanage donor relationships eectively. Building trust with donors involves encouraging them to takecalculated risks based on outcomes rather than mere reporting. Establishing balanced relationships
with all stakeholders provides the necessary leverage for eective policy dialogue.

8Decentralization and Horizontal Structures: While this is not specically a dynamic implementing
decentralized governance both internally and externally is crucial. Internally, this promotes bottomup decision-making and reduces bureaucratic constraints through horizontal organizational structures
through local committees and clusters. Externally, it involves engaging local communities and stakeholders in governance processes by sharing with them governance responsibilities, thereby fostering
greater responsibility, inclusivity and responsiveness.

4.1.2 Social Innovation and Knowledge Sharing
Social Innovation and Knowledge Sharing constitute the dynamic core of informal CSOs operating in
extreme contexts. Social innovation endows CSOs with the adaptability necessary for organizational
resilience, particularly in conict settings, by devising unique, context-specic solutions leveraging
community resources and capacities. Implementing these tailored solutions within communities not
only addresses local challenges eectively but also facilitates the dissemination of this knowledge toother CSOs and communities, thereby enhancing mobilization and gaining trust from the community,
donors, and government. Key dynamics within this pillar include:

Social Innovation: This involves encouraging community-led projects that address local challenges through innovative solutions, thus providing legitimacy and oering sustainable, cost-eective
solutions. Social innovation requires exible governance structures and robust local partnerships to
succeed. By fostering a culture of innovation, CSOs can address complex social issues more eectively.

Knowledge Sharing: Eective knowledge sharing relies on establishing and maintaining intraand inter-organizational structures for the exchange of best practices, local ideas, assessments, andinnovations. This collaborative approach not only fosters resilience but also encourages collective
learning and innovation. Knowledge sharing enhances the ability of CSOs to develop new capabilities
and improve their processes and services in response to changing environments and social needs.

Knowledge Resilience: Knowledge resilience refers to the ability of an organization to utilize existing knowledge generated through social innovation and knowledge sharing. This capability ensuresthat organizations can not only sustain and leverage existing knowledge but also adapt and generate
new knowledge systems in response to evolving environments and challenges. It involves continuous
learning and the integration of new insights into the organizational framework.

4.1.3 Sustainable Organizational Transformation
To sustain informal CSOs in the long term, there is a need for the remobilization of civil society andthe adoption of organizational resilience as well as collective

Sumud. This requires services that are

not only innovative but also built on political ideology. In the case of Palestinian CSOs, this means
not only resilience for survival but also the end of the occupation and liberation. This pillar addresses

9the need for CSOs to not only adapt to changing environments but also actively engage in politicaland social protests and advocacy to drive long-term sustainable development. Key dynamics within
this pillar include:

Community Mobilization: Eective community mobilization is critical for sustainable organizational transformation. CSOs must actively engage and mobilize community members to participate indecision-making processes and advocacy eorts. This fosters a sense of ownership and empowerment
within the community, enhancing the organization's legitimacy and impact. Mobilization strategies
should leverage local knowledge, build on existing social networks, and promote active citizenship.

Integration of Sumud into services : Sumud, or steadfastness, is a key cultural concept that embodies resilience and perseverance in the face of adversity. Integrating

Sumud into the organizationalframework of CSOs involves fostering a collective identity and solidarity among community members. Services with the aim of

Sumud will support community perseverance but also mobilize towards

the end of occupation. Emphasizing

Sumud helps CSOs maintain their focus on long-term goals andmobilize community towards their political re-engagement.

4.2 The Process of Informalization
Figure 1 illustrates the process of informalization from a NGOized organization to a communitydriven CSO. The process begins with the implementation of decentralized and horizontal governancestructures to enhance the exibility, responsiveness, and eciency of the CSO. This approach aims
to integrate members of society into the decision-making processes both within the organization andin the broader community. By distributing decision-making authority through local communities andclusters, the organization ensures an active board of directors that is diverse and representative of
various geographical locations. Decentralized governance, rooted in social contexts, prioritizes local
problem-solving, enabling dierent communities to address their issues collaboratively through social
innovation. This approach leverages local capacities to ensure sustainability and suitability. Successfulmodels can be shared, utilized, and adapted for future use, fostering continuous improvement among
CSOs and their communities. This dynamic and iterative process generates resilient knowledge,
enhancing organizational resilience. The integration of the concept of

Sumud into service delivery

embeds the collective national goal of social resilience into CSO operations. Services are designed withliberation in mind, re-engaging and mobilizing Palestinians into political action. This strengthens
the backbone and trust in CSOs, providing them with long-term political power against the Israeli
occupation, shrinking civic space, donors, and the Palestinian Authority. Ultimately, this processleads to reduced dependency on external actors such as donors and foreign governments, fostering
greater self-reliance and empowerment within Palestinian communities.

10Fig. 1: Process Model for Informalization

4.3 A Real Life Case: RAWA
RAWA, whose slogan is For liberatory, resilient Palestinian community work (Rawa, 2024), wasfounded in 2018 by former NGO workers disillusioned by the restrictive and conditional nature of
traditional aid, which they found stiing to vision, discourse, objectives, management methods, andwork culture. RAWA's mission is to provide social initiatives with exibility, trust, and partnership, focusing on societal capabilities, resources, agency, and independence through participatory
grant-making, where donors share grant-making power with beneciaries. The organization employs
decentralized governance structures, including advisory boards and local and regional clusters. Their
2024 plan aimed to intensify collaboration with initiatives, learn with and from them, and be creative in developing our nancial and organizational structures toward independence (Rawa, 2024).
In June 2024, RAWA highlighted its operational priorities post-Gaza war, emphasizing exibility toincrease resilience despite disruptions and a lack of pre-allocated funding. They addressed urgent
needs such as water desalination, solar energy, food, and tent construction, while building trust in

11

initiative leaders and their adaptive capabilities. RAWA has actively resisted international donors
who weaponize aid to suppress support for Gaza, creating a fund to support Palestinian institutions that reject conditional aid and developing strategies for mobilizing collectives against malicious
foreign funding. The practical application of informalization is evident in RAWA's response to thewar, as many donors withdrew funding for political reasons, reinforcing RAWA's focus on exibility, trust, and independence. Their approach, which emphasizes innovative thinking, collaboration,and knowledge sharing, aligns with the studies main ndings, making RAWA a notable example ofmobilization, independence, and de-NGOization in the Palestinian context.

5 Discussion
5.1 Implications for Institutional theory
This paper advances institutional theory by introducing informalization as a strategic response to therigidities of traditional institutionalization processes. Informalization is conceptualized as a dynamic,
context-specic, and resilient organizational framework that enhances adaptability, eciency, andlegitimacy for CSOs, particularly in extreme contexts such as conict zones. Traditional institutional
theory, as discussed by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) and Meyer and Rowan (1977), emphasizes formal structures, rules, and norms in shaping organizational behavior and legitimacy through coercive,
mimetic, and normative isomorphism. However, these formal structures often lead to ineciencies
and hinder adaptability, especially in volatile environments. Informalization oers an alternativeby emphasizing operational eciency, exibility, and community-driven governance, aligning with
Waerder et al. (2022) focus on organizational resilience in extreme contexts. Studies by Pache andSantos (2013) and Powell et al. (2005) support the notion that informal practices can enhance
adaptability and innovation. This study challenges the traditional link between formalization, professionalization, and eectiveness by demonstrating that informalization can achieve operationaleciency and eectiveness through merit-based legitimacy, encouraging a reevaluation of professionalization in institutional contexts. Insights from Lawrence et al. (2009) on institutional work further
support this argument, emphasizing the role of actors in shaping and transforming institutional
contexts. Additionally, informalization contributes to the discourse on social innovation and knowledge sharing, enabling CSOs to leverage local knowledge and foster collaborative problem-solving, as
explored by Tina Dacin et al. (2002) and Garud et al. (2007). Informal organizations gain legitimacy
through their eectiveness and responsiveness to community needs, contrasting with formal organizations that rely on professionalization. This shift broadens the understanding of how organizations
can gain and maintain legitimacy in diverse contexts. Informalization addresses power imbalancesand dependencies created by donor-driven institutionalization, promoting self-reliance and reducing

12

dependency on external actors. This theoretical advancement enriches academic discourse and oers
practical implications for designing and managing resilient and adaptive organizations in extreme
contexts.

5.2 Implications for CSO Practitioners
A recurring concern among interviewed CSO representatives is that many Western tools and frameworks are ill-suited to the Palestinian context, resulting in excessive reporting requirements thatdetract from eldwork and are often tied to short-term funding. However, this issue was not as pronounced in CSOs established before 1995, as these organizations had institutionalized organically
before the arrival of international donors and the Palestinian government. These CSOs were able tointegrate practices and values that were inherently aligned with their communities and organizational
identities, leading to fewer conicts with donor expectations. The key lesson here is the importance ofallowing CSOs to institutionalize independently over time, without succumbing to external pressuresthat force them to articially adopt institutional practices. Such pressures can erode the organization's values, identity, and trust within the community. RAWA is a leading example, prioritizing thedevelopment of its own structures and values while innovating governance methods that emphasize
exibility, responsiveness to disasters, and perseverance to essential elements in extreme contexts.
Thus, informalization is not a step back from institutionalization; rather, it is a revisiting of institutionalization in a way that transcends technical rigidity, prioritizing the localization of practices,
solutions, and social values.

Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Mirai Creation Fund for their nancial support
in the preparation of this discussion paper and for funding the conference travel expenses to present
it. I am also deeply thankful to Prof. Aya Okada and Prof. Yasunari Takaura, members of my Ph.D.
dissertation board, whose invaluable feedback has been instrumental in developing and dening theconcept of informalization. Furthermore, I extend my appreciation to the International Society for
Third-Sector Research (ISTR) for including me in their 8th Ph.D. seminar and 16th international
conference. The feedback received from these events has greatly contributed to situating informalization in relation to the institutionalization of civil society organizations in extreme contexts andexploring its applicability beyond Palestine.

References
Al Jayousi, R. and Y. Nishide. 2024.

Beyond the ngoization of civil society: A framework forsustainable community led development in conict settings.

13

VOLUNTAS: International Journal

of Voluntary and Nonprot Organizations 35 (1): 6172 .
Andersson, F.O. 2022.

The exigent study of nonprot organizational evolution: Illuminating

methodological challenges and pathways using a nonprot entrepreneurship lens.

International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprot Organizations 33 (6): 12281234 .

Arda, L. and S.B. Banerjee. 2021.
palestine.

VOLUNTAS:

Governance in areas of limited statehood: The ngoization ofBusiness & Society 60 (7): 16751707 .

Atia, M. and C.E. Herrold. 2018. Governing through patronage: The rise of ngos and the fall of civilsociety in palestine and morocco.

Organizations 29: 10441054 .

VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprot

Barin Cruz, L., N. Aguilar Delgado, B. Leca, and J.P. Gond. 2016. Institutional resilience in extreme
operating environments: The role of institutional work.

Business & Society 55 (7): 9701016 .

Bluhm, D.J., W. Harman, T.W. Lee, and T.R. Mitchell. 2011. Qualitative research in management:
A decade of progress.

Journal of management studies 48 (8): 18661891 .

Creating credibility: Legitimacy and accountability for transnational civil society.

Brown, L.D. 2008.
Kumarian Press.
Bryman, A. 2016.

Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Challand, B. 2008.

Palestinian civil society: Foreign donors and the power to promote and exclude.

Routledge.
Choudry, A. and D. Kapoor. 2013.

NGOization: Complicity, contradictions and prospects. Blooms-

bury Publishing.
Clarke, V. and V. Braun. 2021. Thematic analysis: a practical guide .

Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage

Creswell, J.W. and V.L.P. Clark. 2017.
publications.
Creswell, J.W. and J.D. Creswell. 2017.

approaches. Sage publications.

de Bárcena Myrsep, A. 2022.

Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods`research has killed the israeli-palestinian conict': Navigating theover-researched eld of the west bank,Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln. 2011.

Over Researched Places, 8199. Routledge.

The Sage handbook of qualitative research. sage.

Dillman, D.A., J.D. Smyth, and L.M. Christian. 2014.

The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons.

DiMaggio, P.J. and W.W. Powell. 1983.

Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys:

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism andcollective rationality in organizational elds.

American Sociological Review 48 (2): 147160 .

Garud, R., C. Hardy, and S. Maguire. 2007. Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An
introduction to the special issue.
Greenwood, R. and C.R. Hinings. 1996.

Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing

together the old and the new institutionalism.

Academy of management review 21 (4): 10221054 .

Harrow, J. and Y. Sola. 2022. Strengthening non-prot knowledge sharing in a conict zone: A pilot
study in the occupied palestinian territories-gaza .

The organization-rst approach: How programs crowd out
community. Harwood Institute for Public Innovation.

Harwood, R.C. and J.A. Creighton. 2008.

14

Hsieh, H.F. and S. Shannon. 2005.

Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

health research 15: 127788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 .

Ismail, F. and S. Kamat. 2018.

Qualitative

Ngos, social movements and the neoliberal state: Incorporation,

reinvention, critique.

Beyond NGO-ization: The development of social movements
in Central and Eastern Europe. Routledge.

Jacobsson, K. and S. Saxonberg. 2016.

Jad, I. 2004. The ngo-isation of arab women's movements.

IDS bulletin 35 (4): 3442 .

Institutional Ambidexterity:
Leveraging Institutional Complexity in Practice, Volume 39, pp. 349373.

Jarzabkowski, P., M. Smets, R. Bednarek, G. Burke, and P. Spee 2013.

Kacen, L. and J. Chaitin. 2006. 'the times they are a changing': Undertaking qualitative research inambiguous, conictual, and changing contexts.
Lang, S. 2012.

The Qualitative Report 11 (2): 209228 .

NGOs, civil society, and the public sphere. Cambridge University Press.

Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional
studies of organizations. Cambridge university press.

Lawrence, T.B., R. Suddaby, and B. Leca. 2009.

Mair, J. and I. Marti. 2009. Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study frombangladesh.

Journal of Business Venturing 24 (5): 419435 .

Marie, M., B. Hannigan, and A. Jones. 2018. Social ecology of resilience and sumud of palestinians.

Health 22 (1): 2035 .

Meyer, J.W. and B. Rowan. 1977.
ceremony.

Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth andAmerican Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340363 .

Meyer, M. and R. Simsa. 2018.

Organizing the unexpected: How civil society organizations

dealt with the refugee crisis.

VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and NonprotMorrar, R. and S. Baba. 2022.

Social innovation in extreme institutional contexts: the case of

Organizations 29 (6): 11591175 .
palestine.

Management Decision 60 (5): 13871412 .

Morse, J.M. 1991.

Evaluating qualitative research.

Qualitative Health Research 1 (3): 283286.

https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239100100301 .
Pache, A.C. and F. Santos. 2013. Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response tocompeting institutional logics.
Patton, M.Q. 2002.

Academy of management journal 56 (4): 9721001 .

Qualitative research & evaluation methods. sage.

Powell, M. 2006. Which knowledge? whose reality? an overview of knowledge used in the development
sector.

Development in practice 16 (6): 518532 .

Close encounters: The circulation and receptionof managerial practices in the San Francisco Bay area nonprot community.

Powell, W.W., D.L. Gammal, and C. Simard. 2005.

Rawa. 2024. Through gaza darkness. Accessed: 2024-06-26.
Scott, W.R. 2008.

Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Sage.

Selznick, P. 2011.

Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Quid Pro Books.

Srinivas, N. 2009. Against ngos?: A critical perspective on nongovernmental action.

Voluntary Sector Quarterly 38: 614626 .

15

Nonprot andStake, R.E. 1995.

The Art of Case Study Research. Sage.

Sukarieh, M. and S. Tannock. 2013. On the problem of over-researched communities: The case of theshatila palestinian refugee camp in lebanon.
Tartir, A. and T. Seidel. 2019.

Sociology 47 (3): 494508 .

Palestine and rule of power: Local dissent vs. international governance.

Springer.
Tina Dacin, M., J. Goodstein, and W. Richard Scott. 2002. Institutional theory and institutionalchange: Introduction to the special research forum.
Todres, L. and K. Galvin. 2005.

Academy of management journal 45 (1): 4556 .

Pursuing both breadth and depth in qualitative research: illus-

trated by a study of the experience of intimate caring for a loved one with alzheimer's disease.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 4 (2): 2031 .
Van de Ven, A.H. 2007.

Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford

University Press, USA.
Waerder, R., S. Thimmel, B. Englert, and B. Helmig. 2022. The role of nonprotprivate collaboration
for nonprots' organizational resilience.

Nonprot Organizations 33 (4): 672684 .

Yin, R.K. 2009.

VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary andCase study research: Design and methods, Volume 5. sage.

Zencirci, G. and C.E. Herrold. 2022. Project-think and the fragmentation and defragmentation ofcivil society in egypt, palestine, and turkey.

Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 51 (3):545565 .

16