The policy fields of migration and asylum continue to pose challenges to scholars and practitioners of global governance alike. Fundamentally, there is no broad consensus about which goals should actually be at the heart of governance efforts: the human rights of migrants and refugees? The security of borders? The sovereignty of the nation state? These divisions have sharpened over the past years with a growing number of populist politicians claiming that migration poses a security threat to the populations of destination countries. There is a growing disconnect between these national politics and levels above and below: in global spaces, like-minded states, international organizations and civil society organizations deliberate normative frameworks such as the Global Compacts for safe, orderly and regular migration (GCM) and on Refugees (GCR), while national and subnational spaces opt for more pragmatic policies.

In her refreshing approach, Nele Kortendiek proposes an analysis that steps away from the established concepts of multiple levels and spaces of global governance and examines informal and experimentalist global governance on the ground. More specifically, through an impressive mix of participant observation, interviews and document analysis, she shows how the communities of practice in a very specific location—the Greek island of Chios—had to react in an often-improvisational manner to the high influx of people during the so-called European migration crisis. These arrivals did not fit into the clear refugee/migrant distinction but constituted complex migration flows.

Kortendiek’s research poses a relevant challenge to the common notion that international organizations (IOs) such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) are coherent unitary actors. Rather, these IOs, as well as humanitarian organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), often rely on “hired hands,” volunteers, local staff, and a very mobile class of practitioners that may move on to work for another organization after their contract ends. Corporate identity and by-the-book approaches might be less common than on-the-fly reactions to challenges on the ground.

While these decisions may be ad hoc and many of Kortendiek’s contacts and respondents no longer work for the organizations that employed them at the time, the author makes an important observation: “What happens in the field does not go unnoticed at headquarters.” In an innovative chapter on “Stabilization,” she analyzes how frontline practices can consolidate and diffuse back up into the organization—that is, if the gatekeepers, i.e., headquarter staff, allow this information to travel. The detailed examination of the role of training practices and materials fills a rarely addressed gap in the literature on global migration and refugee governance.

Fittingly for a study of communities of practice, the conclusion of the book includes some practical recommendations including the notion of horizontal accountability towards refugees and migrants themselves. Conceptionally, her research could also contribute to the wider field beyond her specific case study by proposing a loop model of global governance on the ground that alternates between situated learning and stabilization. Even if Kortendiek has consciously stepped away from major global governance discourses such as the role and diffusion of norms in her research, it has the potential to contribute to a field that has so far gained fairly little attention: the socialization of international organizations.

Socialization studies have seen IOs primarily as a contributing factor in the international system who could socialize their member states or other actors, including their staff members (Murdoch, Z., H. Kassim, S. Connolly, and B. Geys. 2019. Do international institutions matter? Socialization and international bureaucrats. European Journal of International Relations 25 (3)). Kortendiek’s research demonstrates how this internal dynamic is not necessarily a one-way-process. Rather, through their inputs and practices on the ground, even temporary staff members could contribute to the socialization of IOs via diffusion through headquarter staff who are responsible for the development of training materials and guidelines.

Building on Kai Alderson’s work on state socialization (Alderson, K. 2001. Making sense of state socialization. Review of International Studies 27 (3)), I have argued elsewhere that international organizations might get socialized in a similar manner (Rother, Stefan. 2025. International organisations are people, too: IOM’s role as coordinator of the UN Migration Network and the Socialisation of International Organisations. Geopolitics 30(4)).

While Kortendiek’s case refers to a moment of crisis and thus a very specific moment in time (although it could be argued that crisis is rather a permanent state in the field of forced migration; see Stokes, Lauren. 2019. The Permanent Refugee Crisis in the Federal Republic of Germany, 1949—. Central European History 52(1)) she also provides a concise overview of the development of global mixed migration governance. If there is one shortcoming, or rather, a missed opportunity, it is that this chapter serves as background and we learn how it influences the governance on the ground—but not vice versa. While the old verdict of a “missing migration regime” could still be argued, this policy field of global governance has been dynamic in the past two decades, and many of the major developments like the deliberations of the aforementioned compacts and the establishment of the UN Migration Network as a more inclusive successor to the dysfunctional Global Migration Group, have been started in direct response to the so-called European refugee crises.

IOM has been at the center of many of these developments, changing its role from an organization outside the UN system to a “related agency” and serving as coordinator of the UN Migration network. I would argue that this change in status, new responsibilities and interactions with a wider field of stakeholders, including civil society organizations, has contributed to the socialization of this IO from the outside. Kortendiek’s approach could now help shine light on processes of socialization from the inside. This would also link up well with Alderson’s thoughts on normative internalization, which include the change in beliefs of influential actors, pressure from domestic actors, and deeper levels of internalization. Here, a significant culture change could stem from, and be reflected in, new procedural guidelines, widening of issue areas and projects, and hiring of staff—all aspects of the governance presented in Kortendiek’s book. While norms may have been outside of her focus, research on norm diffusion within organizations from the ground up could certainly take inspiration from her approach.