Search results

This chapter explores queer theory as a “thought of a method” in educational ethnography by sharing stories of two third grade boys and situating them in a discussion of Britzman’s ideas about reading and Butler’s notion of fantasy. The stories are presented as a possible queer educational ethnography, in which the ethnographer writes the fantastic narrative of the boys as they read creatively to reveal and unsettle gender and reading as sites of constraint to which other constraints adhere. The boys’ reading itself is a queer reading of these constraints and as such makes alterity visible and possible. The study and the methodological framework suggest that educational ethnographers and other adults who work in schools should become attuned to the markers of constraint and alterity, so as to recognize, shelter, and maintain the alterity that children make possible. The chapter asserts children must be allowed to read for alterity, and shows how fantastic narratives that emerge from such readings are limited by the hushing of individuals who disallow alterity in classrooms. Ultimately, this chapter is relevant to ethnographers of education in that it suggests that queer theory not only is necessary to narrate and thus shelter the ways that gender can and should be unsettled in classrooms, but also allows us to narrate and shelter other queer urgencies related to fear, violence, and vulnerability that children experience or share in classrooms. Implications for the current climate of school reform based on standardization of curriculum are also discussed.

This chapter seeks to address questions related to the convergence among alternative agrifood movements as well as the convergence between alternative and conventional practices with a focus on local movements. We reconstruct the common conflation of the alternative/conventional binary into a multidimensional measure that recognizes the complex interactions of economic, political, social, and cultural elements in the construction of convention, alterity, and opposition. We also consider several forms of possible convergence: multi-organizational, multi-sectoral (among elements of the agrifood system), multidimensional (among political, economic, cultural, and social practices), and multilevel or scale (hierarchy of spatially embedded governance units). These matters are empirically examined by focusing on the rapidly growing Food Policy Council (FPC) movement in North America. We address the question of this movement’s diffusion, consider its variable linkages between state and civil society, and examine the substantive practices and framings in which the movement has been engaged. While we find that most FPC practices are probably vulnerable to conventionalization, the movement’s most valuable function may be its modular form. That form functions as an incubator of multi-organizational and multi-sectoral experimental practices in a multiplicity of local environments. Further, ties between FPCs provide a networking mechanism for transmitting information about the successes and failures of those experiments among hundreds of locales and regions. Finally, the discourse among the FPC leadership amplifies values favoring the democratization of food, and articulates beliefs in the right to food as well as notions of food citizenship and sovereignty.

The aim of this article is to investigate the creative knowledge processes which are often invisible in innovation work.

An ethnographic field study was conducted following three multidisciplinary groups; two groups in an Oil and Gas Company, Statoil and one group in a Research Institute. Data collection included observations, field conversations and formal interviews.

Creative knowledge processes develop over time in six different phases of initial innovation work. The article discusses the characteristics of communication and knowledge work in these phases. It was concluded that the creative processes peak in the three middle phases, and these phases can be seen as a separate “Room of Opportunity”.

This study is limited to three groups, but the pattern of phases is consistent across all groups studied.

This study shows that knowledge diversity in groups does not automatically lead to creativity and underscore that group members’ ability to learn from each other is crucial for the quality of new ideas. To develop innovative ideas, groups must ensure a knowledge platform and challenge present knowledge by balancing alterity and intersubjectivity in a circular movement.

The findings presented in a model “Room of Opportunity” show that creative knowledge processes develop in phases and peak in a separate room. This is a new way to understand early innovation work, and the model is a contribution to how such invisible processes can be visualized and facilitated.

The domain of study on mediated suffering is ensconced within an Orientalist paradigm which ideologically structures our visuality and gaze. The consignment of suffering through bodies of alterity and the geo-politics of the Global South encodes the coloniality of power as a dominant reading. It then naturalizes the West as the voyeur in its consumption of the abject bodies of the Global South. Creating a binary through this East-West polarization in the oeuvre of suffering as a realm of study, it creates the hegemony of the West as the moral guardian of suffering, imbuing it with the right to accord pity and compassion to the lesser Other. Beyond elongating the Orientalist trajectory which lodged the body politic of the Global South as a sustained ideological site of suffering, it hermeneutically seals the East as irredeemable, ordaining it through the gaze over the Other as a mode of coloniality. In countering this Eurocentric proposition, this chapter contends that this coloniality of gaze needs further rumination and new sensibilities in the study of mediated suffering, particularly following 9/11 and the shifting of the geo-politics of suffering in which the West is dispossessed through its own manufactured ideologies of the ‘War on Terror’ such that it is under constant threat of terrorist attacks and through the movement of the displaced Other into the Global North. Besieged and entrapped through its own pathologies of risks and threats, the West is projected through its own victimhood and the politics of the Anthropocene within which risks are seemingly democratized by environmental degradation as an overarching threat for all of humanity. Despite these shifts in the global politics, the scholarship of suffering is locked into this polarity. The chapter interrogates this innate crisis within this field of scholarship.

This chapter is concerned with the question that is indigeneity, and its situation within literary and juridical imaginaries. As a persistently unsettling presence, indigeneity appears outside the law, before the law and beyond the law – indeed, in Derrida's terms, as an evocation of the unconditional. Whereas the law determines indigeneity to recognise it, I propose that its expression in Indigenous literature evokes a Derridean unconditional to which the law must perpetually, if momentarily, respond. This chapter elaborates a conception of indigeneity, as expressed in Indigenous literature, as disruptive and deconstructive of non-Indigenous law, opening its narratives to transformation.

The purpose of this paper is to review emerging approaches to field studies of organizing that aim to avoid the problems of traditional methods and techniques.

The paper is based in pragmatist philosophy and constructionist perspective. Within this frame, the paper starts with a brief history of fieldwork methods in organization study, continues by diagnosing their shortcomings in the light of contemporary developments, and ends by reviewing promising approaches to studying contemporary organizations.

Young researchers are warned about possible risks and gains from experimenting with new methods.

The potential value of the paper is in its function of a guide for organization scholars looking for innovative approaches to their study object.

The purpose of this paper is to document and analyze the case of a public sector organization in the Gulf region, in which Arab‐expatriate relations worked well and sustained a positive and high‐performing organizational climate.

The research employed an embedded ethnographic approach to produce a case analysis of expatriate‐local work relations.

The study found that although there may be multiple sources of difference and potential conflict between Arab locals and expatriates in the workplace, there are circumstances where the effects of such divisions are neutralized, and a positive work environment is sustained. The paper identifies the key sources of division, and social cohesion, and shows how – in this case – these factors interacted so that the negative impact of cultural difference was neutralized, and good working relations were achieved.

The paper is new in two respects. It is the first ethnographic study of Arab‐expatriate work relations in a public sector organization in Oman. It is also the first paper to identify, and distinguish between, the factors emphasizing alterity between Arab and expatriate workers, and those encouraging social cohesion.

The progressive limits to rights mobilization have become starkly apparent in the past two decades. No new suspect classes have been forthcoming from the Supreme Court since 1977 despite continued demands for legal recognition by lesbians and gays, indigenous peoples and others interested in expanding civil rights doctrine. Public tolerance for civil rights measures has likewise dried up. Since the 1960s, referenda on civil rights have halted affirmative action programs, limited school busing and housing discrimination protections, promoted English-only laws, limited AIDS policies, and ended the judicial recognition of same-sex marriage, among other issues. Nearly 80% of these referenda have had outcomes realizing the Madisonian fear of “majority tyranny”¹ and signaling the Nietzschean dread of a politics of resentment (Brown, 1995, p. 214; Connolly, 1991, p. 64).

When analyzing modes of navigating a multi-cultural environment in a multinational corporation (MNC), most studies employ an etic approach that delineates how, for example, multi-cultural companies thrive and maneuver in a likewise multi-cultural business contexts. This approach implies the use of theoretical models and empirical observations that from a methodological view identify an employee as either an objectified agent or as an anonymous “other,” indicating that such approaches are rooted in an ethnocentric academic tradition. Acknowledging the merits of this tradition, we take the methodological approach a step further and introduce an emic or contextualized approach that makes employees themselves provide the bulk of data on how and why they position themselves in a multi-cultural organization the way they do. The main objective of this chapter is thus to discuss how employees develop personal strategies to navigate in a complex multi-cultural organization. The study takes off by developing a theoretical model for how to approach emic studies and then proceeds to suggest a methodological approach that is capable of providing empirical data for a model based on a combination of both etic and emic approaches. This constitutes a first step towards developing a generic model of how to deal with context. In order to test the model, the empirical focus will be on the relationship between the headquarter of the Danish MNC, Maersk Line, in Denmark and its subsidiaries in Asia. This relationship is analyzed on the basis of interviews in the Danish headquarter and in the local offices in Tokyo, Kuala Lumpur, and Penang.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss how fieldwork impacted the author's own and one participant's positioning; the author's reflexivity, experiences and feelings of alterity; the participant's performances and conversations between the author and participant.

The author uses a confessional tale to describe the time spent with the participant and confesses how it impacted on the author as the researcher. The author examines her biases, feelings, and vulnerabilities, and explores some of the methodological and positioning issues with which she struggled.

The author ponders on what she learned while being in such close quarters with a participant and discusses what she should keep in mind about herself as the researcher during subsequent data collection forays. Researchers should know themselves well before attempting such closeness because when we are researchers, we can’t change who we are as people.

It is believed that the extreme researcher/participant closeness was unique but was, at the same time, an extremely useful form of data collection.