Practising organizational ethnography

Full text

PracticingOrganizationalEthnography

DvoraYanow*,SierkYbema**,andMerlijnvanHulst***
*FacultyofSo Amsterdam
cialandBehavioralSciences,Universityof
D.Yanow@uva.nl[correspondingauthor]
**Faculty sterdam
ofSocialSciences,VUUniversityAm
***FacultyofLaw,TilburgUniversity
Toappearin
ThePrch:racticeofQualitativeOrganizationalResea
CoreMethodsandCurrentChallenges
GillianSymonandCatherineCassell,eds.
London:Sage(forthcomingWinter2011‐2012).
PartII:CoreMethodsofQualitativeInquiryinOrganizationalResearch

Ithnographyandorganizationalethnography:Anoverview
 ‘Ethnography’istypicallyusedtomeanthreethings.Itsliteralmeaning,fromthe
Greek,referstoaparticularkindofwriting:awrittenaccount(graphein)ofapeople
(ethnos).Thismeaninghasbeeneclipsedbytwoothers,especiallyasethnographyhas
beentakenupinsomedisciplinesoutsideofanthropology.Itssecondandmorecommon
usagereferstoasetofmethodsorresearchstrategy,alsocalledfieldresearchor
fieldwork:somecombinationofobservation,withwhateverdegreeofparticipation;
talkingtopeople(oftencalled‘interviewing’whentheformalitiesofsettingup
appointmentsareinvolved);andthestudyofmaterialartefacts,inallthreetounderstand
theirmeaningsforsituationalactors.Inorganizationalsettings,materialartefactstypically
includeresearchquestion‐relevanttexts(e.g.,annualreports,correspondence,internal
memos,cartoons/jokes/photosonofficedoorsandbulletinboards,webpages,andthe
.One

like).Inathirdsenseoftheterm,methodologistsareincreasinglypointingto
ethnography’sdistinctive‘sensibility’:anorientationtowardthesocialworld–actors,
(inter)actions,settings–andthematerialobjectsinitwhichfocusesonthecentralityof
meaningandmeaning‐makingtoresearchpractices.
 Inourview,ethnographyentailsallthreeofthese:aresearchprocessinvolving
fieldworkmethodsengagingtheextraordinary‐in‐the‐ordinarywithaparticularsensibility
towardsoftenmorehiddenorconcealedmeaning‐makingprocesses,reportedina
particularformofwritingthatplacesbothauthorandreaderatthescene,inthethickof
things,throughactor‐centredandcontext‐sensitiveanalysisandtheorizinggroundedin
layereddata(Ybemaetal.2009,ch.1).Asitspurposeistogivereadersasenseofwhat
‘life’islikeinthesettingunderstudy,ethnographycommonlyrestsonanin‐dwellingin
thatplace,typicallyinasituation‐specificrole.Thistypicallyrequiresprolonged
observationovertime(andperhapsoverdifferentspatiallocations;discussedbelow).Such
in‐dwellingrequiresethnographerstobethere,inthesetting,longenoughtobeableto
understandthecommonsense,everyday,unwrittenandunspoken,tacitlyknown‘rulesof
engagement’knowntosituational‘natives’,movingfrombeingmoreofastrangertothat
settingtobeingmoreofa‘familiar’inandwithit(whilerenderingit‘strange’againinthe
writing).Muchas‘beingthere’ineverydaylifeinvolvesengagingwiththoseone
encounters(familymembers,co‐workers,busdrivers,shopkeepers,etc.),ethnography
itselfismorethanasetofinterviews,entailingadegreeof‘livingwithandlivinglikethose
whoarestudied’(VanMaanen1988:2).Ethnographicfieldworkcanbedoneinavarietyof
waysandwithdifferingintensities(wethereforeseelittleuseinspecifyingaminimalfield
2

period),butittypicallyinvolvesmorethanflyinginandoutofthefieldforabrief,tourist‐
likevisit.Hence,wejoinwithBate(1997)indecryingtheuseof‘airplane’(quick,short‐
duration)ethnography,whetherbyconsultantsorbyacademics.Ethnographic‘being
there’becomesacharacteristicnotonlyofthefieldresearchbutofthewritingaswell:
layereddescriptionsofobjects,events,actors,andinteractionshelptocreateanonfictional
(albeitnecessarilyfabricated)accountoforganizationallifewhichplacesbothauthorand
eader
ownrolesinshapingthoseinterpretations.
 Lastly,althoughethnographyisthoughtbymanytohaveoriginatedin
anthropology,anhistoricalaccountofitsacademicoriginsshowsthattheyliein
administrativepractices,specificallyinempires’needstomanagefar‐flunganddistant
outposts.Hence,itmightbe’bettertoregardacademicanthropologyasaspecificinstance
ofethnographicpracticethantheotherwayaround’(Salemink2003,p.9).Those
organizationalethnographersnottrainedinanthropologydepartmentswhoareanxious
abouttheirmethodstrainingmanquéandbonafidescan,then,relinquishtheseconcerns
3
r atthescene. 
 Methodologicallyspeaking,ethnographicresearchcanbeinformedbyeitherrealist‐
objectivistorconstructivist‐interpretivistapproaches.Ethnographerscanseektodiscover
‘howthingsarereallydone’or‘whatreallyhappened’inaparticularorganizational
situation,inanontologicallyrealistfashion,seeingthemselvesasobjectiveobserversand
sense‐makers.Ortheycanproceedfromtheperspectivethatsocialrealitiesare
intersubjectivelyconstructed,seeingthemselvesasco‐constructorsandco‐interpretersof
themeaning(s)oforganizationaleventsalongwithsituationalmembers,reflectingontheir

andgettoworkondevelopingandarticulatingwhatorganizationalethnographyisor
shouldbe,drawingonarichheritageoforganizationalethnographicresearch,ranging
4
researcherstoexpect.
 Thedevelopmentfromthe1950sonofmainframecomputers,surveyresearch,
fromgovernmentbureaucraciestoschools,fromhospitalstocoalmines.
 Inwhatfollowswediscusstheusesofethnographyinorganizationalresearch,after
whichwepresentthreeexamplesofethnographicresearchtoillustratethepeculiar
problematicsoforganizationalethnography.Theseexamplesinformoursubsequent
iscussionofthemulti‐sited,reflexive,andrelationalcharacterofethnographicresearch.
d

Iinorganizationalresearch:Historicaltothepresent
 Organizationalethnographyenjoysalongheritage,acrossawiderangeof
organizationaltypesanddisciplinaryhomes.EltonMayo’s1920s‐1930sHawthornestudies
areacaseinpoint(e.g.,Mayo1933),asaretheclassic,late1940s‐early1960sin‐depth
analysesofthe‘informalorganization’,suchasWhyte(1948),Selznick(1949),Gouldner
(1954),Blau(1955),Dalton(1959),Goffman(1959/1983),Kaufman(1960),Roy(1960),
andCrozier(1964).Thesedetailedaccountsoforganizationallifebasedonfieldresearch
communicatethesenseof‘beingthere’amidstthesocialaspectsoforganizations,their
backstagepolitics,powergames,andotherunintended,non‐rational,andattimes
dysfunctionalconsequences.Thesestudies,organizationalethnographyavantlalettre,
upendedthepurportedly‘rational’organizingthatMaxWeber’sidealtypebureaucracy
theories,depictingformalorganizationsasefficientlyfunctioningmachines,hadled
I.Uses

5
statisticalscience,andbehaviouralisttheorieseclipsedethnographicapproaches,as
researchaimingtomeasureorganizationalstructures,contingencies,andbehavioursby
quantitativemeanscametodominateorganizationalstudies.Towardtheendofthe1970s,
agrowinguneasewithsuchquantificationandtheconcomitantneglectofsocialactors’
everydaypractices,livedexperiences,andprocessesofmeaning‐makinggenerateda
renewedinterestinqualitativemethods.Theoreticaldevelopmentsacrossthesocial
sciences,amongthemtheinterpretiveandlinguisticturns(e.g.,Geertz1973,Rabinowand
Sullivan1979,1985),alsodrovethesemethodologicalchanges.Notableamongthe
theoristsleadingthis‘methodologicalrenewal’inorganizationalstudiesisJohnVan
Maanen(e.g.,1979,1988,1995),whoseempiricalandmethodologicalworkboth
demonstratedandtheorizedtheplaceoforganizationalethnography.
 Firstmanifestedinstudiesoforganizationalsymbolismandculture,therenewed
attentiontoethnographyalsoinvigoratedolderfieldsofstudy,fromstrategytoleadership,
organizationaldesignandchangetoworkplacepractices,cross‐culturalcommunicationto
ethicsandnormativebehaviour(see,e.g.,Barley1983,Collinson1992,Delbridge1998,
Dubinskas1988,IngersollandAdams1992,Kondo1990,Orr1996,Rosen2000,Watson
1994,Yanow1996).Ethnographic(andotherqualitative)researchstrategieshave
increasinglybeencomingbackintoorganizationalstudies,invarioustheoreticalcontexts
(see,e.g.,Bate1997,MoreyandLuthans1987,Schwartzman1993;morerecently,Fine,
Morrill,andSurianarain2009,Neyland2008,PrasadandPrasad2002,andYbemaetal.
2009).Ethnographiesofpublicsectororganizationsarealsoreturning,joiningtheearlier
bureaucracyandpublicadministrationworkofBlau,Crozier,Kaufman,andSelznickcited

6
above(e.g.,Dubois2010,Stein2004),alongwithothersineducationalstudies,healthcare
studies

1.Sensitivitytohiddendimensionsoforganizationallife
,andotherfields.
Theintertwiningofethnographicmethodswithagrowinginterpretive
methodologicalawarenessmightbeseenashavingadvancedthestudyofparticular
organizationalstudiestopicsfrommore‘collective’,meaning‐focusedperspectives,among
themorganizationalculture,identityformation,andorganizationallearning(e.g.,Brown
andHumphreys2002,CookandYanow1993/2006,Kunda1992,Nicolinietal.2003),
arenaserstwhiledominatedbymorepositivistpsychologicalandsocial‐psychological
approaches.Fromthere,itwasnotabigleaptonarrativeordiscursiveapproaches(e.g.,
Ybema2010)ortothepracticestudies(e.g.,Orr1996,Miettinenetal.2009)thatjoin
activitytheoryandactor‐networktheory,bothdrawingonethnographicmethods.Apart
fromitsabilitytodepictthelivelinessoforganizationallife,organizationalethnography
promisestoelucidatetwoaspectsforwhichothermethods,suchassurveys,areless
suitable:(1)its“hidden”dimensions,and(2)itsactor‐contextrelations.
.Indrawingclosetosubjectsand
situations,organizationalethnographerscanpotentiallymakeexplicitoftenoverlooked,
tacitlyknownand/orconcealeddimensionsofmeaning‐making,amongthememotional
andpoliticalaspects.Innotingtherelativepoweroforganizationalactors,theirinterests
andtheirstrategies,ethnographiescanhaveadirect,critical,evenshockingquality,laying
bareotherwisehiddenandevenharshsocialrealitiesandexposingtheentanglementsof
culturewithpower.Fororganizationalmembers,suchexplicitdescriptionsofroutine,

taken‐for‐grantedwaysofthinkingandactingcanbebothfamiliarandsurprisingasthey
seethemselvesthroughtheethnographer’seyes.Inrevealingtheseaspectsof
organizationallife,suchethnographiesmayattimeschallengewhatorganizationalactors
wouldliketohearorreadaboutthemselvesandtheirorganizations.Whileofferingamuch
neededcriticalvoice,suchethnographiesalso,however,requireethnographerstoconsider
theirownposition,theirpositionality(discussedbelow),andtheethicalimplicationsof
7
theirwork.
2.Sensitivitytotheinterplaybetweenactorsandcontext.Secondly,organizational
ethnographycancontributetocurrentstructure‐agencydebatesinthesocialsciencesthat
continuetocarveuporganizationalstudies(Reed2006),asitcombinesanorientation
towardsubjectiveexperienceandindividualagencywithsensitivitytothebroadersocial
settingsandthehistoricalandinstitutionaldynamicsinwhichtheseareembedded.
Alternatingclose‐upsofactors,situationsandinteractionswithbroaderviewsthatsketch
widersocialandhistoricalcontexts,powerrelations,andmeta‐discourses,ethnography
‘seestheworldinagrainofsand’(slightlyparaphrasingWilliamBlake),exploringand
exemplifyingthegeneralthroughthelocalandtheparticular.Thecombinationof
contextualanalysiswithanactor‐centredapproachpromisestoremedythe‘ahistorical,
acontextualandaprocessual’qualitiesofmuchoforganizationalstudies(Pettigrew,quoted
nBate1997:1155).
i

[Tocopyeditor:linebreaklefthereintentionally;nextpara.isnotcontinuationof
previousone]


 Ethnography’sresearchtechniquestakeonparticularforminmeetingthespecific
demandsofmanagementandotherorganizationalsettings.Forone,researcherscannot
countonwalkinginonanexecutiveunannounced,andsoethnographic‘talk’oftenincludes
formalinterviews.Mintzberg’s‘structuredobservation’(1970),analternativetothediary
studiesusedatthetime,addeddirectobservationtothestudyofmanagers.Wolcott’s
(1973)‘shadowing’(ofaschoolprincipal)isyetanotherwaytoobserveorganizational
1.Collectiveidentityformationamongnewspapereditors
8
leadersethnographically.
 Thevarietyofethnographicstudiesoforganizationsandorganizingisreflectedin
ourownfieldwork.Wedrawonthreeofthese,conductedindifferentperiodsandin
differentcontexts,toillustratetheattributesoforganizationalethnographydiscussed
above,itsrange,anditssensitivitytothehiddendimensionsoforganizationallifeaswellas
totheinterplaybetweencontextsandactors.Thesestudiesalsolaytheempirical
groundworkforoursubsequentdiscussionofthreecurrentissuesrelevantto
organizationalethnography:(1)multi‐sitedresearchinwhichfieldworkersfollowactions,
actorsandartefacts;(2)highlyreflexiveresearchwithrespecttoknowledgeclaims;and
3)highlyrelationalresearchthattreatsparticipantsasco‐researchers.
(

III.Threeexamples
(SierkYbema)
 Theveryfirstdayofmy1997and1998fieldworkintheeditorialroomsoftwo
DutchnationalnewspapersstartedwiththedailymeetingofTrouw’seditorialstaffatthe
endofthemorning(Ybema2003).Later,Ilearnedthatthesemeetingsusuallytookless

9
than30minutesandwerefrequentedbynomorethan10editors.Thistime,however,the
roomwasstuffed,all25seatstaken,atleastanother25editorssittingontablesonthe
sidesorleaningagainstthewalls.Aprolongeddebateensuedaboutafront‐pagearticlein
thatmorning’snewspaperwhichhadoutragedalargenumberofeditors.IfIwastruly
interestedinidentity,Ihadfoundmybreadbutteredonbothsides,editorsassuredme
afterwards.Followingthesediscussionsgavemeabeelinerightintothemiddleofthe
newspaper’sinternaldebatesaboutitsidentityandthusintothemoreorlessconcealed
power‐andemotion‐riddendimensionsofmeaning‐making.Detaileddescriptionsofritual
gatheringsinorganizationalsettings,suchasChristmascelebrations(Rosen2000)or
informationalmeetings(Alvesson1996;seealsoSchwartzman1993),wereinthebackof
mymindwhenIdecidedtofocusmyresearchontheheateddiscussioninthiseditorial
meetingand,subsequently,tofollowtheformingofopiniononthatday’sopeningarticlein
conver
sations,ontheintranet,andinformalandinformalget‐togethers.
Processesofde‐ideologizationinDutchsociety,alongwiththeprofessionalizationof
journalism,fromthe1960sonwardsandtheslowbutgradualdecreaseofnewspaper
readershipinthe1990shadcreatedaproblemofidentityandimageforthosenewspapers
thathaddrawninspirationfromtheirreligiousorpoliticalroots.Thisideologicaland
‘reputational’crisischallengededitorsoftheoriginallyProtestantnewspaperTrouwand
thepoliticallyleft‐wingdeVolkskranttorethinktheiroveralldirection,refashionthe
papers’profiles,andtherebyfundamentallyreconsidertheorganizationalidentityofeach.
Iwasinterestedinthisintenseprocessofrenewedmeaning‐making,askinghowthat
collectiveidentitycametoberepresentedintheeverydaydiscourseofnewspapereditors

nowth
attheseinstitutionswerecutloosefromtheirideologicalmoorings.
ThroughouttheresearchI‘followed’particularissues,events,persons,andtexts.
ShadowingtheDayChiefand,subsequently,theNightChiefintheearlyweeksofmy
fieldwork,forinstance,providedanexcellent,16‐hour‐longintroductionintotheeditorial
processandthetime‐pressures,groupsofprofessionals,andcontentdemandsitinvolved.
Identitydiscoursewascommonlypresentineverydaydiscussionsaboutactualpractices
andnewspapercontents,andIcloselyfolloweddebatesaboutparticularidentity‐sensitive
(andheavilydiscussed)issues,suchasthatfront‐pagearticleatTrouworthejournalistic
‘profile’ofthenewweeklyVolkskrantmagazine.Usingthediscursiveinteractionsover
theseissuesastableauxvivantinmywritingandtreatingthemasa‘totalsocialfact’
(Mauss1990[1925])–acomprehensivesocialeventthatopensupwindowsonarangeof
relatedmicro‐eventsandbroadercontingencies–allowedmetotracethedifferentthreads
–professional,political,ideological,commercial–oftheprocessofidentityformation
knottedtogetherintheseissuesorincidents.Followingissues,events,persons,andtexts
onthemoveallowedmeinmyresearchnarrativetoprovideaviewof‘theinside’or,more
accurately,themultipleinsidesofidentityformationprocesses,whilesimultaneously
sketchingthewidercontextsinwhichthese‘insides’wereembedded(thesecondaspectof
organizationalethnographydescribedabove).InSergioLeonefilmicfashion,Ialternated
‘extremeclose‐ups’that‘zoomin’onpersons‐in‐(inter)action,withtheirdetailedfacial
expressions,gestures,talk,andintonation,with‘wide‐angle’or‘longshots’that‘zoomout’
andshowpanoramicviewsofinstitutionalcontexts,historicalbackgrounds,power
relations,andsocietaldiscourses(cf.Nicolini2009).
10

11
Influencedbythe‘linguisticturn’inthesocialsciencesandorganizationalstudies’
growinginterestinidentityissues,Iadoptedadiscourseanalyticalapproach.Havingread
literaturethattheorizessocial,ethnic,andorganizationalidentitiesintermsofcontinuity,
distinctivenessandcohesion,includingdescribingorganizationalmembers’firm
positioningofasharedandstablecollectiveselfvis‐à‐viscompetitorsorclients,Iwas
surprisedtonoticethateditorsdidnottrytorestoreorshoreuptheirprecarious,non‐
cohesive,collectiveselves.Instead,theyclaimedthatneithertheideologicalcontentof
theirnewspapernorthesymbolicboundariesbetweendifferentnewspaperscoulddefine
theircollectiveidentityinaclear,unifying,historicallyconsistentway.Ratherthanimpress
anoutsideworldofcompetitors,readersorthegeneralpublicbymakingself‐praising
comparisonswith‘others’(asisusuallydescribedintheidentityliterature),theeditors
emphasizedhistoricaldiscontinuities,theincreasingindistinctivenessofthenewspaper
vis‐à‐visitscompetitors,andtheloomingdangeroflosingthecompetitionwiththose
‘others’.Acondensedexplanationforwhytheeditorsengagedinthisunexpectedrhetoric
restsontheirfeltneedtostressthedramaofthesituation,toexpresstheirhopesandfears,
ndtosellachangeprocessortoresistit(Ybema2010).
emakinginlocalgovernment
a

2.Sens (MerlijnvanHulst)
Betweentheendof2003andthebeginningof2006,Iconductedethnographic
fieldworkintwoDutchmunicipalities(vanHulst2008a).Ihadnoformalpositioninthe
localgovernmentsunderstudy,butmyresearchroleandworkweresupportedbythe
administratorsandannouncedinalettertomunicipalemployeesandcouncilmembers.

Eachmunicipalityprovidedadeskandaccesstoalmostallmeetingsandarchives.After
awhileIbegantositinontheweeklymeetingsofeachboardofaldermenwiththeir
respectivemayors.Thisgaveme,ontheonehand,anoverviewofthingshappeningineach
placeand,ontheother,asortoffieldworkrhythm.IneachmunicipalityIdecidedtozoom
inontwopoliticalandadministrativeprocessesthatpeopleIspoketoregardedashighly
relevan
ferentgroupsandindividualsmadetheirowninterpretationsofevents.
Beinginthefieldopeneddoorstoallkindsofdataanddatasourcesthatwould
otherwisehavebeenhardtoget.Theseincludedmeetingsthatwereclosedtothegeneral
public,informaldocuments,likeleafletsorhandwrittenspeeches,andunplannedcasual
conversationsatthephotocopymachine.InbothmunicipalitiesIobtainedcopiesofalarge
numberandvarietyofdocuments:agendasandminutesofmeetings,policydocuments,
politicians’speeches,localandregionalnewspaperarticles,textsonmunicipality
webpages,materialsonpoliticalparties’websites,politicalpamphlets,andpolitical
programs.Inaddition,Ihadmanyconversationswithactorsinvolvedinorknowledgeable
12
ttothatmunicipality.
Althoughthefieldworkwashostedbyformalorganizations,thelocalbureaucracies
ofthetwotowns,myfocusonsense‐makingprocessestookmebeyondtheboundariesof
theseorganizations.Iobservedmeetingsofthemunicipalities’managementteams,mostof
thetowncouncilmeetings,andmanymeetingsofthevariouscouncilcommittees.In
additiontomeetingstakingplacewithinthemunicipalities,Ibecameinterestedin
presentationsofplanstomembersofthepublicoutsidethetownhalls.Ialsovisited
meetingsofpoliticalparties,soundingboards,andaneighbourhoodcommitteetofindout
howdif

13
abouttheissuesunderstudy.Thecharacter,duration,timeandlocationofthese
conversationsdiffered.Mosttypicalweretheshortchatsinthehallwaysofthetownhalls
beforeoraftermeetingsandduringbreaks,longerconversationsduringlunchesand
dinners,andformal,open‐endedinterviewsinofficesandatpeople’shomes.Requiring
manyhoursinthefield,ethnographicfieldworkplacesdemandsontheresearcher’ssocial
andimprovisationalskills.Overall,ethnographicfieldworkofferedthepossibilityof
personallyexperiencingeventstakingplaceandprocessesunfolding(seealsovanHulst
2008b),andobservationmadeitpossibletogeneratedatathatwouldhavebeen
imposs
ibletofindindocumentsandhardtogatherthroughinterviewingalone.
Onatheoreticallevel,thefieldworkenabledmetomovefrom‘culture’to‘narrative’.
Myinitialresearchpuzzlehadconcernedcultureinlocalgovernment.WhenIstudied
organizationalanthropologyinthesecondhalfofthe1990s,theconceptofcultureas
somethingsharedandstablewasnolongertheonlyviewinorganizationalstudies.
However,explainingthistopublicadministrationresearchersandpoliticalscientists,
especially,wasnotalwayseasy,duetotheirdisciplines’differentorientations.Following
organizationalscientistslikeLindaSmircich(1983),Idefinedorganizationalcultureasa
processofsense‐making.WhilewritingabouttheissuesIstudiedinthefirsttown,
however,Istumbleduponaconceptthatwasevenmorehelpfulin‘seeing’whatwasgoing
onthere:storytelling.AsIenteredmysecondfieldworkperiod,thatconcepthelpedme
understandmoreclearlyhowtheexperiencesIencounteredduringvariousformsof
observation,conversationandreadingconnectedpeopleinthefieldtoeachother,aswell
asmyselfasresearchertothefield.

14

3.Implementingpublicpoliciesthroughorganizations(DvoraYanow)
 Between1972‐1975IworkedinaseriesofrolesintwoCommunityCenters,partof
agovernmentcorporationinIsrael,intwodifferenttowns,returningin1980‐81for6
months’follow‐upobservation,interviewing,anddocumentanalysisfromabaseadjacent
tothenationalheadquarters(Yanow1996).Bothtownswereimmigranttownsremote
fromurbancenters,andtheagency’sraisond’êtrewastoprovidenon‐formaleducational
andculturalactivities–language,cooking,andphotographycourses,folkdancing,tennis,
etc.–leadingtoresidents’integrationintothestateandadoptionofitsnationalcultural
ethos.AsaCommunityOrganizer,myfirstrole,apositionfundedbytheHousingMinistry,
mysupervisorineachCenterhadmemapeachtownanditsneighbourhoods,notingthe
typeandconditionofhousingandinfrastructure(poorlighting,badsewerage,uncollected
garbage),thelocationsofservices(thetownhallanditsdepartments;banks,grocery
stores,markets,synagogues;youth,sports,union,andotherkindsofclubsandsocialhalls;
andsoon),andresidents’demographiccharacteristics(yearofimmigration,ethnicgroup,
familysize,ages,etc.).AtonepointIbecameActingDirectorofthesecondCenter,
subsequentlybecomingdirectoroftwodepartments.Ialsobecameamemberofthe
corporation’snationaladvisorygroup,givingmeanoverviewofthelargeroperation.When
Ireturnedforthefollow‐upstudy,itwasasanon‐participatingobserver.
 Myresearchquestiongrewoutoftheinitialexperience:whywasitsodifficultfor
mycommunityorganizercolleaguesandmyselftoaccomplishinthefieldwhatwethought
wehadaclearnationalmandatefor?Myundergraduatebackgroundinpoliticalscienceled

15
metoframemyresearchasapolicyimplementationstudy,astheCommunityCenterswere
implementingnationalpublicpolicy.Tounderstandimplementation,Ineededtoknow
somethingaboutorganizations,theentitieschargedwithputtingpolicyintopractice.Yet
existingimplementationandorganizationaltheories,emphasizingrational‐technical
decision‐makingandinstrumentalgoal‐setting,didnothelpmeunderstandmyownlived
experience.USsocialscienceswerethenopeninguptosciencestudies,hermeneuticsand
phenomenology,andwhatcametobecalled‘theinterpretiveturn’,andthesereadings(e.g.,
Kuhn1962/1970,BergerandLuckmann1966,Geertz1973)ledmetoothersinsymbolic‐
culturalanthropologyandthephilosophyof(social)science.Icametoseetheeventsand
circumstancesIwasstudyingasentailingthecommunicationofpolicyandorganizational
meaningsthroughlanguage(especiallytheorganization’snameandanorganizational
metaphor),materialobjects(thecenterbuildingsandtheirdesignandprograms),andacts
(organizationalritualsandtheirmyth‐likecomponents).Implementation,Isaw,was
enabledorconfoundedbyoverlapsordifferencesbetweenpolicyandorganizational
founders’andleaders’intendedmeanings,embeddedinandcommunicatedthroughthose
elements,andtownresidents’andothers’own‘readings’ofthoseelementsandtheir
meanings.
 Giventheresearchfocusonmeaning,Icannotimagineconductingthestudyinany
otherway.Mytheorizinggrewoutoftheobservations,experiences,readings,and
conversationsthatIhadonsite,informedbyknowledgeoftheorganization’shistoryand
sociopoliticalcontextandbythetheoreticalliterature’sdebates.Experienceinthefirst
Centeraddedacomparativeangle.Without‘beingthere’,experiencingtheorganization,

thetowns,theirphysicallayoutandproblems,andtheirresidents’waysoflife,Iwould
nothaveunderstoodthefounder’sstatementthatthe‘communitycenterwouldbea
functionalsupermarket’–Ineededtoknowwhat‘supermarket’meanttopeoplethereat
thattimetounderstanditsmeaningincommunitycenterterms.AsIwasinterestedin
present‐dayproblems,historical‐archivalanalysis,whileengaging,wouldhavebeen
insufficient,evenwithinterviews;norwouldasurveyhaveenabledmetoexplorethe
relational
 Theseresearchexamplesilluminatethreeissuesonthemethodologicaltabletoday:
ethnography‘s‘multi‐sitedness’;reflexivity,includingontheresearcher’spositionality;and
theintrinsicallyrelationalcharacterofethnographicfieldwork.
16
meaning‐focusedquestionsIwasinterestedin.
 Thedisadvantageswerepersonal,ratherthanmethods‐relatedinthenarrowsense.
Beingonlocationinremotesettings,letalone‘foreign’ones,forextendedperiodsoftime,
separatedfromfamilyandfriendsandone’sfamiliarwayofliving,isnoteasy.The
literaturehasnotspokenmuchoftheemotionalstrainofprolongedfieldresearch(butsee
OrtbalsandRincker2009),letaloneofthesexualandotherphysicalaspectsthatcanpose
‘challenges’–relationshipsbetweenresearchersandresearched;harassmentoffemale
researchers;being‘out’inthefield(seeLewinandLeap1996);mobilityandother
problemsof‘wheelchairedness’(MikeDuijn,personalcommunication,2009);theaging
ieldresearcherandotherbodily,emotional,mentalorsociallimitations.
f

IV.Contemporaryissuesinorganizationalethnography:Multisited,reflexive,and

17

1.‘Multi‐sited’ethnography.Thesettingsoftraditionalethnographyhadadistinctive
character:thelocationswererelativelybounded–orappearedthatway.Morerecently,
anthropologistshavestartedspeakingof‘multi‐sited’ethnography,itsmarking
underscoringthedifferenceinthisconceptualization.Ourexamplessuggest,however,that
inorganizationalethnography,multi‐sitednessisthenorm;itmayevenbeoneofits
distinctivecharacteristics,asorganizationalethnographerstypicallyfollowactors,actions,
artefacts,andtheideastheyembodyandreflect.Followingthesetravellingideas,persons,
andsoforthleadsresearcherstodifferentorganization‐relatedsites,especiallywhen
conceivingoforganizationsasloosely‐coupledsystems,inter‐organizationalfieldsor
networks.WeseethisinYbema’sfollowingofthenewspapereditors’work,decisions,
rituals,rumours,discussionsandthereport,newlogo,frontpage,product,etc.;invan
Hulst’sfollowingofactorsandactsbothinternalandexternaltothemunicipalities;andin
Yanow’strailingofself‐containedCentersandtheparentorganization,aswellasof
oversightministries,fundingagenciesandoverseasdonorsandideas.Orr(1996)followed
copiertechniciansvisitingclientsandmeetingcolleaguesinmultiplelocationsfarfromthe
corporation’scentraloffice.Indeed,such‘following’canmaketheresearchprocessseemto
meander,challengingtheresearchertotravelwithortrailissues,personsortextsto
variouslocations.Evenifoneremainswithinthewallsofasingleorganization,‘mapping’
acrossitsdepartmentsandhierarchicallevelsoneisperforceengagedina‘multi‐sited’
tudy.
s


1
2.Reflexivityandpositionality
8
.Reflexivity,includingontheresearcher’s‘positionality’,is
increasinglycentraltoethnographicresearch,inparticularthatinformedbya
constructivist‐interpretivistmethodologyinwhichresearcher‘objectivity’isnot[assumed
tobe]present.Thiscastsinheightenedreliefthematterof‘truthclaims’andwhat
positivist‐informedresearchcallstheir‘validity’and‘reliability’.Asthoseterms
encapsulatethenotionthatresearchcanmirrortheworldbeingobserved,theyareless
appropriateforassessingresearchthatproceedsfromaconstructivist‐interpretivist
perspective.Ratherthanseeingdataasexistingindependentlyoftheresearcher,waitingin
‘thefield’tobediscovered,interpretiveethnographerslookathowhappenstanceshaped
theiraccesstovariousorganizationalparts,persons,documents,etc.Thetruthclaims
questionpivotstohowbothdataandanalysesweregeneratedanddeveloped,requiring
reflectivetransparencyonresearchers’positionalityintwosenses:their‘geographic’
locationwithintheorganization,andtheirdemographiccharacteristics,eitherofwhich
mightshapeaccessandsight,enablingsomethingswhilelimitingothers.Ratherthan
seeingthemselvesasobjective,uninvolveddiscoverersofpre‐existingdata,interpretive
ethnographersseethemselvesasactivelyinvolvedinthe(co‐)constructionofthosedata,
andtheyseetheirnarrativesasalsoconstructingtheorganizational‘realities’theyreport.
Whilereflectingonthesematterscouldcertainlybepartofthefieldresearchitself,such
reflexivityisprimarilymarshalledonthewrittenpage.
 Location‐basedpositionalityisamatterofparticularconcerninorganizational
ethnography,giventhelinksbetweenhierarchy,knowledge,andpower.Researcherswho
immersethemselvesin‘beingthere’makethemselvesmorelikelytobeassociatedwithor

19
drawnintoaparticularperspective.TheCommunityCenterstudy’ssecondphase
illustratesonedimensionofthisproblematic:perceivingYanowas‘comingfromagency
Headquarters’becauseshewaslocatednearby,localCenterstaffattimestreatedthe
researchvisitasanopportunitytoputaparticularfaceonwhatwassaidandshown,
thinkingitawaytoconveymessagestotheCEO(despitethefactthatshehadnosuch
accesstohim).Inthenewspapercase,positionalitywasinterpretedinprofessionalterms:
somejournalistsseemedhighlysuspiciousthatYbemawouldwanttomakeheadlineswith
hisresearch,injournalisticfashion.Toovercomethis,hepositionedhimselfassomeone
notinterestedinheadlinesandscoops,whose(academic)bookwouldnotbeoutforat
leastayeartocome(whichmadethemmorecooperative,albeitpuzzledatthevalueof
such‘outdated’data).ForvanHulst,akindoflocationalpositionalityemergedinoneboard
meetingwhencivilservantswereaskedtoleavetheroomsothatboardmemberscould
haveaprivateconversation.Ashepackedhisethnographer’sgeartoleave,too,oneofthe
boardmembersannounced:‘Researcher‐of‐the‐administrationstays’.Whileexperiencing
thisasbothsurpriseandhonour,vanHulstnotedthetrickinessofsuchapositioning,
whichmightaffecthisabilitytotakeacriticalstancetowardthoseinpower.Geographic
positionalitycanalsobeamatterofthe(in)sightaffordedbydifferentlocations,asPachirat
(2009)documentswithhispromotionfromslaughterhousefloortoQualityControl.
 Initsdemographicsense,positionalityentailsthegender,race‐ethnic,class,age,
sexuality,andothercharacteristicsthatcanaffectaresearcher’saccesstocertainsituations
and/or(categoriesof)persons,others’sense‐makingoftheresearcher,andthe
researcher’sabilitytounderstandothers’experiences.Shehata(2006),forinstance,

documentshowhisbirthplace,educationalattainment,socio‐economicbackground,
gender,andreligiousaffiliationshapedhowhewasperceivedontheshopfloor,whathe
wasallowedtodoandkeptfromdoing,andthekindsofsettingshecouldandcouldnot
enter.Interpretiveethnographersareincreasinglyexpectedtoprovidegreater
transparencyconcerningtheirmethodsandtheirpositionality,inallsensesoftheterm,as
wayofsupportingthetruthclaimstheyadvance.
20
a

3.‘ButIthoughtwewerefriends?!’andotherissuesintherelationalcharacterofresearch.
Explicitrecognitionoftherelationalcharacteroffieldworkisincreasing,andalongwithit
bothethicalandmethodologicalimplications.Tobeginwith,ethnographersnegotiate
‘access’totheirresearchsites;butwhereasthistraditionallywasseenasakindof
‘knockingontheadministrativeand/orchief’sdoor’,todayitisincreasinglyseenasa
matterofestablishingandsustainingrelationshipsovertime.Thismakesaccessmorethan
aone‐shotpermissionalactivity,astheessaysinFeldmanetal.(2003)makeclear.
Moreover,fieldwork‘friendships’requirecare,includingmakingdecisionsabouthow
instrumentallytotreatthosewhomresearchersencounterorseekoutintheconductofthe
research:thereisadifferencebetweenconceivingofsituationalactorsaspropertiesofthe
researcher(‘my’informants)andtreatingtheminBuberian‘I‐Thou’fashion.Whatwill
happentofieldworkrelationshipswhentheresearcherconcludeshis/hertimeinthefield?
Andwhatslightsorbetrayalsmightbringasituationalmembertoexclaim,inangerand/or
anguish,‘ButIthoughtwewerefriends?!’(Beechetal.2009).
 Asecondaspectoftherelationalcharacterofethnographicresearchlinksto

21
epistemologicalconcerns:theresearcher’sneedtobecomeasfamiliaraspossiblewiththe
localcultureinordertounderstanditsworkings,whilemaintainingenough
epistemological‘stranger‐ness’thatrecognitionofthecommonsense,theeveryday,the
unspoken/unwritten,andthetacitretainsitsanalyticpurchase(see,e.g.,Ybemaand
Kamsteeg2009).Thewaysofknowingandkindsofknowledgeentailedinthisbalancing
havebeencalledemic/etic(seeHeadland,Pike,andHarris1990),insider/outsider(e.g.,
BartunekandLouis1996),experience‐near/experience‐distant(Geertz1973).ForYbema,
forinstance,workingtoremainarelative‘outsider’tothenewspaperandtopreservesome
oftheinitialsurprisewasasimportantasworkingtobecomean‘insider’andtoachieve
immersion.Thelongtimeittookhimtounderstandtheimplicationsofhisobservations
wasfrustrating,butitwasonlythroughtakingseriouslyhisownbewildermentthatnew
insight
semerged.
Someconfusionhasdeveloped,however,particularlyinorganizationalstudies,
concerningwhatitmeanstobean‘insider’asaresearcher.Istheaimtrulytoloseone’s
‘outsider’status?Isthatevenconceivable?Theontologicalpossibilityoforganizational
‘outsiders’becoming‘insiders’astheyseektoaddlocal,emicknowledgetotheory‐rooted
eticknowledgeisfarmorefraughtthanhasbeenacknowledgedtodate.Insider/outsider
objectifieslocal‘informants’,treatingthemasameanstowardtheresearcher’sendsin
waysthatnullifytherelationalcharacteroffieldresearch.Ontheepistemologicalsideof
things,emic/eticreifiesthenotionthat‘local’knowledgeand‘theoretical’knowledgeare
separatekinds.Ininteraction,thetwotermpairsnegatethehermeneutic‐
phenomenologicalnotionthatknowledge,orunderstanding,isco‐createdininteraction

betweenresearchersandtheirsituationalpartners,neitherofwhomcanbecomethe
other(withthepossibleexceptionof‘nativeanthropologists’,Narayan1993;Nenceland
anow2008).Onthis,furthertheorizingiscalledfor.
22
Y

Vorganizationalethnography?.Why 
 Toconclude,weengagethematterofwhatmightleadanorganizationalresearcher
toundertakeanethnographicstudy.Currentmethodologicaldebatesoftenstipulatethat
thechoiceofmethodshouldbedrivenbytheresearchquestion,ratherthanviceversa.
Althoughinsympathywiththisargument,wethinkitshortchangesthematterinimplying
thatmethodsarechoseninanentirelyrationalfashion.Ourownresearchandteaching
experiencessuggest,instead,thatresearchquestionsandmethodsaremuchmore
mutuallyconstituted–andattimesaresointricatelyboundupwitheachotherastobe
inseparable.Oursenseofthislinksstronglytothethirdunderstandingofethnography
namedintheopeningsection.
 Anethnographicsensibilityisnotsomethingthataresearcherjustsetsaside;
neitherisitsomethingthatonepicksupasonewouldselectamethodfroma‘toolbox’,a
commonmetaphorinmethodstextbooks.Atleastoneofuswouldwanttosaythather
question‐methodspacketchoseher,ratherthanviceversa–meaningthattheir
developmentwasintertwined,aswellasbeinglinkedtoher(unspoken)proclivities.For
anotherofus,traininginsurveyresearchandstatisticalanalyseshadprovidedlittle
knowledgeofotherresearchtraditions;still,hewasstronglydrawntoprocessesof
meaning‐makingandorganizationalpowergames,believingthesenotionswouldhelphim

2
understandwhat‘actually’wentonintheorganizationhewasstudying.Thispredilection
formeaning‐focusedresearchandqualitativemethodswasalsoinspiredbyopportunity
(goodaccesstoinnerdecision‐makingcircles)andsituation(strongdisagreements
3
surfacinginthefieldwhichwerehardtoignore).
 Althoughthispositionmaybeinkeepingwithahermeneutic‐phenomenological
stance,itisdrivennotbyourphilosophicalpresuppositionsbutbyourlivedexperiences,
asbothresearchersandteachers,inwhichwehaveseenpeople,ourselvesincluded,drawn
toframingresearchquestionsinparticularwaysthatcallonparticularmethodsbecauseof
waysofseeingandknowingthatprecededtheresearchproject,reflectingsomethingmuch
deeperthanarational‐instrumentalchoiceoftool.
Ethnographicresearchisacomplexpractice.Althoughreadingaboutorganizational
ethnographyandreadingwell‐writtenorganizationalethnographiescandefinitelyhelp
researchersbecomegoodethnographers,itspracticeislargelylearnedthroughthedoing–
inthefield–asoneexperiencesanddevelopsacertainsensibilityfororganizational
ethnographyitself.Thissuggeststhatadiscussionofethnography’sadvantages‐
disadvantagesismisplacedtotheextentthatitrestsonthoseveryrationalconsiderations
andchoicesthatwethinkdonotwelldescribetheresearchexperience.Organizationaland
otherscholarsneed,instead,toknowwhatethnographicmethodsdowellandlesswelland
perhapstofocusmoreonenablingstudentsandcolleaguestorecognizetheirownpersonal
strengthsandlimitationsandhowthosemightplayoutintheconductofethnographic
search.
re


24
A

Vfurtherreading
 Attentiontoorganizationalethnographyhasrecentlytakenoff,garneringattention
throughworkshops,conferences,journalspecialissues,andmethods‐focusedbooks,
leadingustoanticipateasurgeinmonographs.Kunda(1992)andOrr(1996)remainthe
mostcitedasleadingexemplarsofthegenre.Forintroductionstoorganizational
ethnographicmethodsandmethodologicalconcerns,seeNeyland(2007),Kostera(2007),
andYbemaetal.(2009).Thefirsttwoofthesefocusmoreonmethods,conveying
somethingofthe‘howto’ofethnographicresearch,withintroductorychaptersonculture,
ethnography,andorganizations(Kostera)andtreatmentsofthewholeresearchprocess
illustratedbyvariousorganizationalethnographies(Neyland).Thethirdismore
methodologicalinorientation;itbothintroducesandcriticallydiscussesvariouspractices
inorganizationalethnography,tacklingkeychallengesandmethodological,analytical,
(re)presentational,ethical,andsocialproblematicsthatariseinthedoingandwritingof
organizationalethnography.Foranoverviewofethnography’spastandpotential
contributionstoorganizationalstudies,seeFineetal.(2009).Whilenotspecificto
organizationalstudies,Atkinsonetal.(2001)isanoutstandingcollectionofessayson
ethodologicalissuesofconcerntoorganizationalethnographers.
I.For
m


References
lvesson,Mats(1996)Communication,powerandorganization.Berlin:DeGruyter.

Atkinson,Paul,Coffey,Amanda,Delamont,Sarah,Lofland,John,andLofland,Lynn(eds)
2001)Handbookofethnography.London:Sage.
25
(

Barley,Stephen(1983)‘Semioticsandthestudyofoccupationalandorganizational
ultures’,AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,28(3):393‐413.
c

Bartunek,JeanM.andLouis,MerylReis(1996)Insider/outsiderteamresearch.Thousand
aks,CA:Sage.
O

Bate,S.Paul(1997)‘Whateverhappenedtoorganizationalanthropology?’,Human
elations,50(9):1147‐71.
R

Beech,Nic,Hibbert,Paul,MacIntosh,Robert,andMcInnes,Peter(2009)“‘ButIthoughtwe
werefriends?”’,inSierkYbema,DvoraYanow,HarryWels,andFransKamsteeg(eds)
rganizationalethnography,196‐214.London:Sage.
O

Berger,PeterL.andLuckmann,Thomas(1966)Thesocialconstructionofreality.NewYork:
nchorBooks.
A

lau,Peter(1955)Thedynamicsofbureaucracy.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
B


Brown,AndrewD.andHumphreys,Michael(2006)‘Epicandtragictales:Makingsenseof
change’,JournalofAppliedBehavioralScience,39(22):121‐44.

Feldman,MarthaS.,Bell,Jeannine,andBerger,MicheleTracy(eds)(2003)Gainingaccess.
26

ollinson,DavidL.(1992)Managingtheshopfloor.Berlin:DeGruyter.C

Cook,ScottD.andYanow,Dvora(2006/1993)‘Cultureandorganizationallearning’,in
BarbaraCzarniawska(ed.)Organizationtheory,vol.1,259‐76.Cheltenham,UK:Edward
Elgar.

rozier,Michel(1964)Thebureaucraticphenomenon.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.C

alton,Melville(1959)Menwhomanage.NewYork:Wiley.
D

Delbridge,Rick(1998)Lifeonthelineincontemporarymanufacturing.Oxford:Oxford
niversityPress.
U

Dubinskas,FrankA.(ed)(1988)Makingtime:Ethnographiesofhightechnology
rganizations.Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.
o

ubois,Vincent(2010)Thebureaucratandthepoor.Aldershot:Ashgate.
D

27
alnutCreek,CA:Altamira.

Kondo,Dorinne(1990)Craftingselves.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.
W

Fine,GaryAlan,Morrill,CalvinandSurianarain,Sharmi(2009)‘Ethnographyin
organizationalsettings’,inDavidA.BuchananandAlanBryman(eds)TheSagehandbookof
rganizationalresearchmethods,602‐19.London:Sage.
o

Frost,PeterJ.,Martin,Joanne,Moore,LarryF.,Lundberg,CraigC.andLouis,MerylReis
eds)(1991)Reframingorganizationalculture.London:Sage.
(

eertz,Clifford(1973)Theinterpretationofcultures.NewYork:BasicBooks.
G

ouldner,AlvinW.(1954)Patternsofindustrialbureaucracy.NewYork:FreePress.
G

Headland,ThomasN.,Pike,KennethL.,andHarris,Marvin(eds)(1990)Emicsandetics:
Thensider/outsiderdebate.NewburyPark,CA:Sage.
i

Ingersoll,VirginiaHillandAdams,Guy(1992)Thetacitorganization.Greenwich,CT:JAI
ress.
P

aufman,Herbert(1960)Theforestranger.Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsPress.K


Morey,NancyC.andLuthans,Fred(1987)‘Anthropology:Theforgottenbehavioralscience
28

ostera,Monika(2007)Organisationalethnography.Lund:StudentlitteraturAB.K

Kuhn,Thomas(1970)Thestructureofscientificrevolutions,2nded.Chicago:Universityof
hicagoPress.(1stedn,1962)
C

unda,Gideon(1992)Engineeringculture.Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.
K

Lewin,EllenandLeap,WilliamL.(eds)(1996)Outinthefield.Urbana:UniversityofIllinois
ress.
P

auss,Marcel(1990)Thegift.London:Routledge.(1stedn,1925)
M

ayo,Elton(1933)Thehumanproblemsofindustrialcivilization.NewYork:Macmillan.
M

Miettinen,Reijo,Samra‐Fredericks,Dalvir,andYanow,Dvora(2009)‘Re‐turntopractice’,
rganizationStudies,30(12):1309–27.
O

Mintzberg,Henry(1970)‘Structuredobservationasamethodtostudymanagerialwork’,
ournalofManagementStudies,7(1):87‐104.
J

29
inmanagementhistory’,inFrankHoy,ed.,BestPapersProceedingsofthe47thAnnual
AcademyofManagement,128‐132.Athens,GA:UniversityofGeorgia.
Meetingofthe

Narayan,Kirin(1993)‘Hownativeisa“native”anthropologist?’,AmericanAnthropologist,
5:671‐86.
9

Nencel,LorraineandYanow,Dvora(2008)‘Onmethodologicalrelics:Reconsideringetic
outsiders,emicinsiders,andfieldworkrelationships’.PresentedattheEuropean
ssociationofSocialAnthropologists,Ljubljana(26‐30August).
A

eyland,Daniel(2008)Organizationalethnography.London:Sage.N

Nicolini,Davide(2009)‘Zoominginandzoomingout:Apackageofmethodandtheoryto
studyworkpractices’,inSierkYbema,DvoraYanow,HarryWels,andFransKamsteeg(eds)
rganizationalethnography,120‐38.London:Sage.
O

Nicolini,Davide,Gherardi,Silvia,andYanow,Dvora(2003)‘Towardapractice‐basedview
ofknowingandlearninginorganizations’,inKnowinginorganizations:Apracticebased
pproach,3‐31.Armonk,NY:MESharpe.
a

rr,Julian(1996)Talkingaboutmachines.NewYork,NY:CornellUniversityPress.O


Ortbals,CandiceD.andRincker,MegE.(eds)(2009)‘Fieldwork,identities,and
ntersectionality:Asymposium’,
30
iPS:PoliticalScience&Politics42(2):287‐385.

Pader,Ellen(2006)‘Seeingwithanethnographicsensibility’,inDvoraYanowand
PeregrineSchwartz‐Shea(eds)Interpretationandmethod,161‐75.Armonk,NY:ME
harpe.
S

Prasad,AnshumanandPrasad,Pushkala(2002)‘Thecomingofageofinterpretive
rganizationalresearch’,OrganizationalResearchMethods,5(1):4‐11.
o

Rabinow,PaulandSullivan,WilliamM.(eds)(1979,1985)Interpretivesocialscience,1st
nd2ndeds.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
a

Reed,Michael(2006)‘Organizationaltheorizing’,inStewartR.Clegg,CynthiaHardy,Thomas
B.LawrenceandWalterR.Nord(eds)TheSagehandbookoforganizationstudies,2ndedn,19‐
4.London:Sage.
5

osen,Michael(2000)Turningwords,spinningworlds.Amsterdam:Harwood.R

oy,Donald(1960)‘Bananatime’,HumanOrganization,18:156‐68.R


31
Salemink,Oscar(2003)‘Ethnography,anthropologyandcolonialdiscourse’,inThe
thnographyofVietnam'sCentralHighlanders,1‐39.London:RoutledgeCurzon.

VanMaanen,John(1979)‘Thefactoffictioninorganizationalethnography’,Administrative
e

chwartzman,HelenB.(1993)Ethnographyinorganizations.NewburyPark,CA:Sage.
S

elznick,Philip(1949)TVAandthegrassroots.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
S

Shehata,Samer(2006)‘Ethnography,identity,andtheproductionofknowledge’,inDvora
YanowandPeregrineSchwartz‐Shea(eds)Interpretationandmethod,244‐63.Armonk,NY:
ESharpe.
M

Smircich,Linda(1983)‘Studyingorganizationsascultures’,inGarethMorgan(ed)Beyond
ethod,160‐72.London:Sage.
m

tein,SandraJ.(2004)Thecultureofeducationpolicy.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.S

anHulst,MerlijnJ.(2008a)Townhalltales.Delft:Eburon.v

vanHulst,MerlijnJ.(2008b)‘Quiteanexperience:Usingethnographytostudylocal
overnment’,CriticalPolicyAnalysis,2(2):143‐59.
g

32
ScienceQuarterly,24:539‐50.

anMaanen,John(1988)Talesofthefield.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
V

VanMaanen,John(1995)‘Anendtoinnocence:Theethnographyofethnography’,in
epresentationinethnography,1‐35.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
R

atson,Tony(1994)Insearchofmanagement.London:Routledge.W

eick,Karl(1979)Thesocialpsychologyoforganizing,2ndedn.NewYork:McGrawHill.
W

Whyte,WilliamF.(1948)Humanrelationsintherestaurantindustry.NewYork:
cGraw‐Hill.
M

Yanow,Dvora(1996)Howdoesapolicymean?Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversity
ress.
P

anow,Dvora(2000)Conductinginterpretivepolicyanalysis.NewburyPark,CA:Sage.
Y

Ybema,Sierk(2003)Dekoersvandekrant:VertogenoveridentiteitbijTrouwende
Volkskrant[Discoursesontraditionandtransition:Conflictaboutthenewspaper’sidentity
amongeditorsofTrouwanddeVolkskrant].Amsterdam:VUUniversityAmsterdam.

33

bema,Sierk(2010)‘Talkofchange’,OrganizationStudies31(4):481‐503.
Y

Ybema,SierkandKamsteeg,Frans(2009)‘Makingthefamiliarstrange’,inS.Ybemaetal.
eds)Organizationalethnography,101‐19.London:Sage.
(

Ybema,Sierk,Yanow,Dvora,Wels,Harry,andKamsteeg,Frans(2009)‘Studyingeveryday
organizationallife’,inS.Ybemaetal.(eds)Organizationalethnography,1‐20.London:Sage.