With apologies for cross-posting...:
Colleagues,
A friendly reminder -- proposal deadline is 15 January.
The url is
http://egosnet.org/conferences/collo23/sub_19.shtml
Text follows below.
All the best in the coming year,
Dvora Yanow
Sub-theme 19:[NL]Reflexivity in organizational research[PARA] [PARA]Convenors:[PARA]Dvora Yanow,[NL]Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (Netherlands)[NL]
d.yanow@fsw.vu.nl Alfons van Marrewijk, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (Netherlands)[NL]
a.van.marrewijk@fsw.vu.nl
Michael Humphreys, Nottingham University Business School (UK)[NL]
michael.humphreys@nottingham.ac.uk[NL]
Call for papers[PARA]Many researchers, including ourselves, have been trained in realist writing styles in which the tone is neutral and objective. Many of us have been taught since grammar school to leave the personal "I" out of our formal, academic writing. Even Henry David Thoreau, the American writer, apologized to his readers in Walden, published in 1854, for writing in the first person ("I said," "I walked"). First person accounts are now, as then, considered "subjective" and, hence, not scientific.[PARA]This has led to a lack of reflexivity among social scientists, including researchers in the field of organizational studies, about how what has been called their "positionality" potentially influences the course of their research, from data "collection" or generation to the presentation of research findings. In "realist" writings, researchers implicitly claim sole authority for interpretation of events, interviews, and documents, and they exclude personal accounts that might contextualize those interpretations. Although this exclusion could be seen as attesting to the strength of their training, it could also be seen as surprising in light of their lived experience: most researchers in organizational studies encounter problems related to fieldwork roles and other research processes with which they have to contend, and we might well expect to encounter discussions of these in research reports - and to find them written in the first person.[PARA]A hermeneutic phenomenology suggests that researcher influence cannot be avoided - not even in survey research, despite all the steps taken to ensure that the researcher's questioning will not affect the answers given. Moreover, that philosophical position challenges the received meaning of objectivity and subjectivity in research and suggests other ways to evaluate the trustworthiness of research findings. One of these is precisely through the increased reflexivity of the researcher on her or his positionality and the ways in which that might have influenced the course of the research project. [PARA]The exclusion of the researcher from the scientific text is problematic, then, for understanding the research process, methods, and findings. Texts, both literal and figurative (as in Charles Taylor's view of acts as "text analogues"), are cultural productions that embody cultural meanings based on interpretations, and these interpretations are embodied and emplaced. This argument has been made extensively in various interpretive philosophies and their attendant methodologies, from phenomenology, hermeneutics, and critical theory in Europe to symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, and pragmatism in the US. It has also been advanced by scholars in feminist and race-ethnic studies.[PARA]This stream focuses on issues concerning reflexivity in organizational research. Such reflexivity enables the writer to present different narrative voices and perspectives, thereby potentially sharing interpretive authority with other members of the focus of the research study. Bringing more reflexivity into organizational studies also brings in more narrative and/or impressionist writing styles in presenting research findings, especially in qualitative and interpretive research. These findings may be told with a dramatic flair, as in a good novel. Authors of such texts can be seen as performers who combine arts, science, and craft in order to write ethnographic or other research reports. Some researchers have extended reflexive research and writing practices to authoethnography, in which they subject their own experiences to research scrutiny. This has produced a diverse literature addressing such subjects as political resistance, prison life, anorexia, bereavement and grief, Jewish identity in the workplace, illness and medical care, and teaching. [PARA]Self-reflexive writing can also have limitations and disadvantages. Critics have, at times, perceived such writing strategies as pure fiction: they see the resulting text as much too literary and as presenting no hard facts; the self-reflective narratives as not objective, having strong personal biases and drawing on unrepresentative samples; the style of the narratives as offering no method of verification by other organizational scientists and as lacking validity and reliability. Yet these are exactly the points that reflexivity is intended to compensate for and to overcome. The phenomenological perspective that provides the presuppositional grounding for reflexive research practices challenges this understanding of "facts" and objectivity, and it also suggests different measures of research trustworthiness in lieu of validity and reliability.[PARA]In this stream we seek papers that explore these issues, including such questions as:[PARA]* Methodological questions: How much is it necessary to divulge about the relation of the researcher to the organization studied? When should researchers disguise organizational and/or individual identities? How does the methodological requirement of reflexivity in academic writing impinge upon research contracts with organizations that might object to public identification of their identities and problems? [NL] [PARA]* Empirical-ethical questions: To what extent can data be made anonymous? What is the impact of employees or organizations on publishing - or how much should their wishes be acknowledged? What is the relation of the researcher with the organization that has provided access to the field of study? Have contract negotiations influenced findings or writing style? How much of this should be divulged, in keeping with the demands of reflexivity?[NL] [PARA]* Theoretical questions: Is sense-making in organizational studies without reflexivity possible? How can auto-ethnography be helpful for reflexivity? How does a researcher's role influence the research processes and findings?[NL] [PARA]* 'Writing-up' questions: To what extent does the writer feel comfortable divulging personal information about emotions, relationships, sexual preferences, or financial resources and consulting contract information? Is a novelistic style suitable for articles? How does the autoethnographer avoid the "decay into narcissism" (p. 558 in M. Keith, 1992, Angry writing: (re)presenting the unethical world of the ethnographer, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 10: 551- 568)? [PARA]About the convenors[PARA]Dvora Yanow holds the Strategic Chair in Meaning and Method in the Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Culture, Organization, and Management, at the Vrije Universiteit-Amsterdam. Her research has been shaped by an overall interest in the communication of meaning in organizational and policy settings. Aside from articles published in organizational studies and public policy and administration journals, she is the author of How does a policy mean? Interpreting policy and organizational actions (1996); Conducting interpretive policy analysis (2000); Constructing American "race" and "ethnicity": Category-making in public policy and administration (2003; awarded the first "Best Book" prize, Section on Public Administration Research, American Society for Public Administration, 2004); and co-editor of Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach (2003) and Interpretation and method: Interpretive research methods and the "interpretive turn" (2006). Email
D.Yanow@fsw.vu.nl[PARA][PARA]Alfons van Marrewijk is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Culture, Organization, and Management at the Vrije Universiteit-Amsterdam, where he received his Ph.D. in Business Anthropology. His academic work centers on organization culture and cultural change in technology-driven organizations. He has published on these topics in several key journals, including Journal of Managerial Psychology, Culture and Organization, and M@an@gement. Van Marrewijk combines his academic interest in Business Anthropology with international consultancy work. As partner in the firm Paradox, he has consulted to organizations in the telecom, ICT and construction industries. Contact: Dr. Alfons van Marrewijk, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Culture, Organization and Management. De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, NL. Tel +31 (0)20 5986740; fax +31 (0)20 5986765; email
a.van.marrewijk@fsw.vu.nl[PARA][PARA]Michael Humphreys is Associate Professor and Reader in Organization Studies at Nottingham University Business School. His research interests lie in organizational ethnography, autoethnography, and narrative approaches to organizational identity and change. He has published in a range of journals, including Journal of Management Studies, Organization Studies, Organization, Journal of Organizational Change Management, British Journal of Management, Public Administration, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science and Qualitative Inquiry. Contact: Dr. Michael Humphreys, Nottingham University Business School, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK. Tel: +44 (0)115 8466973; fax +44 (0)115 8466667; email
Michael.Humphreys@nottingham.ac.uk[PARA]
---
COGNET@aomlists.pace.edu
Discussion list for the AoM Managerial & Organizational Cognition Division
To post messages:
cognet@aomlists.pace.edu
To (un)subscribe:
http://aomlists.pace.edu (then select Subscriber’s Corner and follow the instructions).