Search results

This conceptual paper seeks to critically evaluate and illuminate the diverse autoethnographic methodologies that are pivotal for understanding the dynamics of contemporary workspaces. The objective is to contribute to the ongoing scholarly debate on the value of autoethnography in workplace research and explore how it can shed light on complex organizational phenomena.

The paper adopts a narrative literature review approach, focusing on four main forms of autoethnography: realist, impressionistic, expressionistic and conceptualistic autoethnographies. Each form is discussed and dissected, emphasizing their specific sub-forms and illustrating their application through representative examples. The paper engages in a critical debate on utilizing autoethnography in workplace research.

The findings illuminate how autoethnographic methods can be used to gain nuanced and complex understandings of personal experiences situated in workplace culture, as well as how broader social and cultural contexts shape these experiences. The study also highlights the potential of these methods to explore marginalized and silenced stories within workplaces and contribute to the knowledge on power dynamics, inequalities and injustices embedded in the organizational culture.

The following contribution discusses approaches for conducting autoethnographic explorations of selected work environments, offering researchers valuable insights into these methods' application. Through better comprehension and application of these methodologies, researchers can enhance their contribution toward cultivating more inclusive and equitable workplace environments.

The paper stands out in its extensive review and critical discussion of the autoethnographic methods as applied in workplace research. It expands upon individual autoethnographic studies by providing a comprehensive, multifaceted perspective, delving into the merits and limitations of these approaches in particular context of researching contemporary places of work.

The purpose of this paper is to explore a researcher’s emotions in the field. It argues that a researcher’s emotional responses can lead to insights into certain aspects of participants’ emotional and social worlds, while simultaneously obscuring certain lines of inquiry and limiting data collection. On this basis, the author calls for researchers to maintain a high level of awareness and reflexivity while working with strong emotions in the field. This, the author argues, allows a researcher to remain open to new understandings and address any limitations skilfully and transparently.

Drawing on feminist theory and emerging scholarship pertaining to fieldwork and emotions, this paper examines the methodological dilemmas the author faced in relation to the own subjectivity while carrying out field-work at radical ecovillage in the USA. It analyses sections of the reflexive diary and explores the insights the author gained by remaining aware and reflexive while in the field.

The author demonstrates how feelings of unease, alienation and entrapment prompted to explore new lines of inquiry and, in turn, consider certain emotion rules and ideologies present in the research setting. The author also speculates about the ways such feelings impacted the data collection by obscuring certain phenomena in the field.

The author makes a number of practical suggestions about how researchers can work skilfully with emotions in the field. In addition, the author proposes that by remaining mindful of one’s emotional responses valuable lines of questioning and themes may emerge for consideration.

This paper contributes to emerging scholarship on the importance of examining a researcher’s experiences and reactions to a research setting in conjunction with other data. It offers a practical example of how this approach can elicit insight into the lives of participants.

This paper aims to explore the role of the researcher’s emotions in ethnographic practice in accounting research. This paper focuses on shame as an emotion that lingers on, despite the efforts to work through those emotions.

The authors conducted a collective autoethnography to make sense of the fieldwork and after-fieldwork emotions and their consequences. This autoethnography began with the three authors discovering their shared feeling of shame.

Building on Hochschild’s theory (1979, 1983) on emotional labor, the authors demonstrate how shame emerged as a central and lingering emotion of the ethnographies beyond an emotional labor process. The authors show how a double shame appeared toward the field participants and the academic accounting community, affecting the writing and the work.

The authors demonstrate that the perception of the research community’s rules of feelings gives rise to emotions that ultimately change the work. The authors show how collective autoethnography can help accounting research to acknowledge and give room to emotions.

The purpose of this paper is to provide guidelines for reflexive ethnographic writing that transports the researcher's claims of having conducted participatory reflexive research to her audience.

Auto‐ethnographic vignettes from the author's own ethnographic research are used to establish five levels of reflexivity for writing organizational ethnography.

The author argues that the audience needs to be able to judge a researcher's claims to reflexivity through his/her writing. Yet, due to the participation mode of reflexivity while doing ethnographic research, the researcher is not in control over his/her own reflexive writing. Therefore, processes between three groups of stakeholders, namely researcher, field and audience, and their power relations need to be considered in reflexive writing. The author calls this process ethnographic triangulating and derives a five‐tiered model of reflexive writing from it.

The paper offers a perspective on how to write organizational ethnography. Others will have to put this perspective into practice.

The paper moves the participation mode of reflexivity to the level of writing, thereby offering a fully conceived view on reflexivity that acknowledges the influence of field and audience on ethnographic writing.

This paper provides a researcher's account of fieldwork experience in conducting audit research in China. By illustrating on-site fieldwork encounters, the paper reflects stages of access negotiation and management in the fieldwork, reveals the researcher's embodied “affects” in the fieldwork and reasserts the value of researcher's openness and attention in the fieldwork.

This paper uses autoethnography as its overall epistemology. Fieldwork diaries and vignettes are written in the first-person voice to present the researcher's embodied account of fieldwork experience, researcher’s learning and coping skills in managing the fieldwork.

The research findings are not detached from the researcher's experience of the fieldwork. The fieldwork experiences in this study highlight that the fieldwork access is an ongoing process. Different stages of access negotiations, from rejection to acceptance, reveal the tensions between researcher and participants. This study draws attention to the online platform, WeChat, in connecting with auditors to learn from them and suggests openness to the fieldwork encounters and a resilient engagement with auditors.

In reflecting on the researcher's transformation during the fieldwork, this paper argues for a relational and engaged way of conducting fieldwork, rather than a disengaged and judgemental approach in studying auditors' working lives. The paper pays attention to fieldwork as a process and how the knowledge learned in the field is infused with researcher's fieldwork experiences.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the role of emotions in fieldwork by applying grounded theory (GT). Although analytical guidelines in GT are well documented, the implications of researcher emotions have received much less attention.

This paper provides an “insider” account of the author's experience collecting field data during six months in a department of a Fortune 500 company.

It is argued that methodological emotional reflexivity (MER) as a part of doing GT will increase both awareness and understanding about how emotions influence the research process. MER comprises emotional awareness, empathic understanding and emotions in decision making.

The paper proposes acknowledging that emotions are part of, connected to, and both influence and are influenced by research decisions within GT. It is suggested that MER becomes an integral part of memoing in GT. Memos provides a link between data and evolving insights, and is considered fundamental in GT. The inclusion of MER provides a more transparent and adaptive GT approach.

In this overview, the editors trace the history of 10 books they have helmed in what has become the legacy of the Emonet conferences. From the seeds planted in 1998 by a small group of international scholars assembled together at the first Emonet conference, the shift of the study of emotions in organizational studies from the almost “undiscussable” to mainstream scholarship is traced. Following this historical analysis, the story of “What have we learned? Ten years on,” the latest volume in the Emonet book series, is given. In a brief summary of each chapter in the current edition, the editors draw attention to eight topic areas to showcase the remarkable and broad-ranging advances in the field of organization studies that have been enabled by attention to the role of emotions in theory and practice in 10 years since the first publication in the book series. From advances in our knowledge and understanding of work, workers and consumers, to team behavior, leader-member exchange, and In Extremis work contexts, and methodological contributions in the assessment of noncognitive traits through to advances in knowledge of positive work environments, the reader is left in no doubt that organizational scholarship and practice has been deeply enriched through bringing emotions center stage.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss researcher subjectivity in social entrepreneurship ethnographies. Previous research has highlighted a need for alternatives to the heroic representations of social entrepreneurship. Ethnographic methods have been mentioned as a relevant direction to create such emerging understandings.

This paper shows what followed from a decision of a researcher to do an ethnography of a co-working cooperative established for social innovation. Based on the notion of “working the hyphens” in previous research, further developed by other scholars as “working within hyphen-spaces”, the position of the researcher shifted during the research process between a distant outsider and an engaged insider. In addition, a new hyphen-space of hopefulness – hopelessness emerged based on fieldwork.

The shifting positions are manifested in the entanglement of stories of the researcher and the people met during the fieldwork in the hyphen-spaces of insiderness – outsiderness, engagement – distance and hopefulness – hopelessness. The stories reveal how for some the co-working space was a place for hope while for others it caused distress and even burnout.

The ethnographic understanding of social enterprises go beyond heroic representations, which affects how the phenomenon is represented in academic and public discussions.

This study concludes that despite its failure in the form of a bankruptcy, the co-working cooperative succeeded in enabling “social innovation” in the form of hope and personal development – also for the researcher.

This study contributes to the social entrepreneurship literature in showing how ethnographic fieldwork and acknowledging researcher subjectivity bring up alternative representations of social entrepreneurship. The entangled stories of participants and researchers can be a powerful way to reveal situated understandings.

This article is an autoethnography that describes an emotional journey of writing and; presenting a conference paper. While it is a personal story being told, it is a story that speaks to many other minorities in academia who continuously need to legitimize their voices in the midst of the dominant colonialist perspective. The intention of writing this autoethnography is to speak to the feelings of otherness experienced, to disrupt the traditional academic voice (Pathak, 2010), and to allow for the expression of a reality that is often hidden to those with a colonialist frame (Mohanty, 2003).

This article uses autoethnography as a methodology to reveal a personal story. Since autoethnographies help us make sense of our fragmented lives, the journey is told in chronological segments, detailing the emotions leading up to the conference presentation and its aftermath.

The findings of the article expose some of the colonialist frameworks that are still embedded in academia. They also lie in the revelation of the “spectacle of otherness” endured in the process. Drawing the reader into the author's mind and heart with the intention of understanding the other is an important part of this paper.

The first contribution of this paper lies in its decolonizing project, where Western knowledge systems and their epistemologies are the object of inquiry. The second contribution of the paper lies in its attempt to write intersectional research that does not impose predetermined categories of analysis but writes beyond specific classifications of identity. Finally, it also lies in celebrating the subjective self as a place that is worth exploring.

Purpose – This chapter explores the significance of emotional exchanges between historians and their research participants in the production of critical histories of the late twentieth-century British women’s movement. It argues for the importance of exploring the ways in which positive emotions, including feelings of excitement, reverence and commonality, influence the research process and potentially complicate historians’ capacity to produce histories that critically assess popular narratives of the development of the women’s movement.

Methodology/Approach – This chapter draws on qualitative assessments of my own experiences carrying out oral history interviews with women’s movement members to explore the emotional exchanges that take place during the research process. It utilises several historiographical concepts, including being a ‘fan of feminism’, discussions about historical subjectivity and oral history debates about empathy, to reflect on my emotional responses whilst carrying out research.

Findings – This chapter demonstrates that positive emotional exchanges between historians and their research participants influence the production of critical histories of the women’s movement. It highlights how historians’ personal identifications with their areas of study impact on their emotional engagement with research participants, potentially complicating or contravening their wider historical aims.

Originality/Value – Several historians have explored how negative emotional exchanges with research participants influenced their production of critical histories of the women’s movement. By focusing on the influence of positive emotional exchanges, this chapter provides an original contribution to this area of reflexive discussion, as well as wider assessments of historical subjectivity and researcher empathy.