No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This comparative case study examines the organizational variations in refugee services in Dallas and Amarillo, Texas. Engaging sociological theories of organizations, migration, and the state, this study conceptualizes immigrant-serving organizations as brokers that operate within fields of similar entities that channel resources and services to refugees. Drawing on 60 in-depth interviews and over two hundred hours of participant observation, this study finds two distinct models of resource brokerage. In Dallas, immigrant-serving organizations operated as networked resource brokers, characterized by high levels of collaboration, robust local political support, and community engagement through consistent volunteer labor. These characteristics facilitated the sharing of resources and knowledge, resulting in the establishment of more professionalized services for immigrants and refugees. In contrast, immigrant-serving organizations in Amarillo operated as atomized resource brokers, characterized by fragmented collaborations, inter-organizational competition, limited volunteer labor, and varying levels of political support from local representatives. This atomized brokerage model hindered the efficient allocation of resources and support, leading to fragmented and less comprehensive services for refugees. In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into the variations within the organizational fields of ISOs in Texas. The comparative analysis of Dallas and Amarillo offers a nuanced understanding of the impact of local context on the provision of refugee services. The research contributes to academic knowledge in the fields of migration, organizations, and the state, and has practical implications for policymakers, ISO workers, advocates, and scholars in Texas and beyond.

Contemporary military conflicts are not likely to occur between states but rather within states. Recent examples, such as the ongoing Chechen-Russian war, Kosovar resistance to Serbian ethnic-cleansing, Mayan (Zapatistas) autonomy claims in Mexico, and the Ogoni struggle for land control in Nigeria testify to the diversity and scope of ongoing state versus nation conflicts. Since most states "host" several ethnonational or indigenous groups within their borders, an examination of the conditions under which internal geopolitical faultlines (or historical/cultural divisions) transform into militarized disputes is warranted. Several theories of separatism guide the two general research questions for this project. First, what prompts some separatist groups to demand secession from the host state(s) while other groups seek greater autonomy within the host state(s)? Second, what specific group characteristics contribute to a separatist group's involvement in intrastate war? Using logistic regression analysis, the findings suggest that when a group is highly concentrated on the homeland, is represented by a political party, and has more than one host state, groups tend to demand exit over autonomy. Also, political parties appear to be a very important indicator in determining a separatist group's mobilization toward intrastate war, essentially exposing ethnonationalist faultlines and further dividing the electorate. Finally, high group concentration can lead to involvement in interstate crises, which demonstrates how intrastate conflicts can transcend state borders. Specific conflict resolution techniques are offered in conclusion to promote accommodation by both separatist groups and host states. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)