Policy Work in Visa Sections

  • Federica InfantinoEmail author


This chapter focuses on how visa sections actually work by shedding light on the workplace, the trajectories and the social construction of workers’ reputation, the allocation of tasks, the knowledge required to perform the job, and the conditions underlining the making of routines. I use the notion of local and practical knowledge because it is the kind of knowledge that allows for carrying out day-to-day EU visa policy implementation. The chapter highlights that routines are the modes of organizational action. It focuses on the organizational conditions and the nature of the work in visa sections that account for the making of routines: staff turnover, knowledge required, uncertainty, supervisory authority, and social limits to the uses of discretion. Similarities are to be found in the skills required to perform the job and skills-learning processes. Also, in the three visa sections, hierarchies, responsibilities, and tasks do not necessarily overlap. Differences emerge in the ways in which the problem of making decisions is framed within the three national organizations.


Routines Visa sections Visa officers Local and practical knowledge Skills-learning processes Framing 


  1. Fassin, D. (2007). Humanitarianism: A Nongovernmental Government. In M. Feher (Ed.), Nongovernmental Politics (pp. 149–160). New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  2. Feldman, M. S. (1992). Social Limits to Discretion: An Organizational Perspective. In K. Hawkins K. (Ed.), The Uses of Discretion (pp. 163–183). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Greenwood, D. J., & Levin., M. (1998). Introduction to Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Hughes, E. C. (1971). The Sociological Eye: Selected Papers. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  5. Infantino, F. (2014). Bordering ‘Fake’ Marriages? The Everyday Practices of Control at the Consulates of Belgium, France and Italy in Casablanca. Etnografia e ricerca qualitative, 7(1), 27–48.Google Scholar
  6. Infantino, F., & Rea, A. (2012). La mobilisation d’un savoir pratique local. Attribution des visas Schengen au Consulat Général de Belgique à Casablanca. Sociologies pratiques, 24, 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of Individuals in Public Services. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  8. Saguy, A. C. (2013). What’s Wrong with Fat? New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Jr., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame Alignment Processes, Microbilization, and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward of Theory of Organizational Socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209–264.Google Scholar
  11. Yanow, D. (2004). Translating Local Knowledge at Organizational Peripheries. British Journal of Management, 15(1), 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FNRSUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations