PracticingOrganizationalEthnography

DvoraYanow*,SierkYbema**,andMerlijnvanHulst***

*FacultyofSocialandBehavioralSciences,UniversityofAmsterdam

[email protected][correspondingauthor]

**FacultyofSocialSciences,VUUniversityAmsterdam

***FacultyofLaw,TilburgUniversity

Toappearin
ThePracticeofQualitativeOrganizationalResearch:
CoreMethodsandCurrentChallenges
GillianSymonandCatherineCassell,eds.
London:Sage(forthcomingWinter20112012).
PartII:CoreMethodsofQualitativeInquiryinOrganizationalResearch

I.Onethnographyandorganizationalethnography:Anoverview

Ethnographyistypicallyusedtomeanthreethings.Itsliteralmeaning,fromthe

Greek,referstoaparticularkindofwriting:awrittenaccount(graphein)ofapeople

(ethnos).Thismeaninghasbeeneclipsedbytwoothers,especiallyasethnographyhas

beentakenupinsomedisciplinesoutsideofanthropology.Itssecondandmorecommon

usagereferstoasetofmethodsorresearchstrategy,alsocalledfieldresearchor

fieldwork:somecombinationofobservation,withwhateverdegreeofparticipation;

talkingtopeople(oftencalledinterviewingwhentheformalitiesofsettingup

appointmentsareinvolved);andthestudyofmaterialartefacts,inallthreetounderstand

theirmeaningsforsituationalactors.Inorganizationalsettings,materialartefactstypically

includeresearchquestionrelevanttexts(e.g.,annualreports,correspondence,internal

memos,cartoons/jokes/photosonofficedoorsandbulletinboards,webpages,andthe
 2
like).Inathirdsenseoftheterm,methodologistsareincreasinglypointingto

ethnographysdistinctivesensibility:anorientationtowardthesocialworldactors,

(inter)actions,settingsandthematerialobjectsinitwhichfocusesonthecentralityof

meaningandmeaningmakingtoresearchpractices.

Inourview,ethnographyentailsallthreeofthese:aresearchprocessinvolving

fieldworkmethodsengagingtheextraordinaryintheordinarywithaparticularsensibility

towardsoftenmorehiddenorconcealedmeaningmakingprocesses,reportedina

particularformofwritingthatplacesbothauthorandreaderatthescene,inthethickof

things,throughactorcentredandcontextsensitiveanalysisandtheorizinggroundedin

layereddata(Ybemaetal.2009,ch.1).Asitspurposeistogivereadersasenseofwhat

lifeislikeinthesettingunderstudy,ethnographycommonlyrestsonanindwellingin

thatplace,typicallyinasituationspecificrole.Thistypicallyrequiresprolonged

observationovertime(andperhapsoverdifferentspatiallocations;discussedbelow).Such

indwellingrequiresethnographerstobethere,inthesetting,longenoughtobeableto

understandthecommonsense,everyday,unwrittenandunspoken,tacitlyknownrulesof

engagementknowntosituationalnatives,movingfrombeingmoreofastrangertothat

settingtobeingmoreofafamiliarinandwithit(whilerenderingitstrangeagaininthe

writing).Muchasbeingthereineverydaylifeinvolvesengagingwiththoseone

encounters(familymembers,coworkers,busdrivers,shopkeepers,etc.),ethnography

itselfismorethanasetofinterviews,entailingadegreeoflivingwithandlivinglikethose

whoarestudied(VanMaanen1988:2).Ethnographicfieldworkcanbedoneinavarietyof

waysandwithdifferingintensities(wethereforeseelittleuseinspecifyingaminimalfield
 3

period),butittypicallyinvolvesmorethanflyinginandoutofthefieldforabrief,tourist

likevisit.Hence,wejoinwithBate(1997)indecryingtheuseofairplane(quick,short

duration)ethnography,whetherbyconsultantsorbyacademics.Ethnographicbeing

therebecomesacharacteristicnotonlyofthefieldresearchbutofthewritingaswell:

layereddescriptionsofobjects,events,actors,andinteractionshelptocreateanonfictional

(albeitnecessarilyfabricated)accountoforganizationallifewhichplacesbothauthorand

readeratthescene.

Methodologicallyspeaking,ethnographicresearchcanbeinformedbyeitherrealist

objectivistorconstructivistinterpretivistapproaches.Ethnographerscanseektodiscover

howthingsarereallydoneorwhatreallyhappenedinaparticularorganizational

situation,inanontologicallyrealistfashion,seeingthemselvesasobjectiveobserversand

sensemakers.Ortheycanproceedfromtheperspectivethatsocialrealitiesare

intersubjectivelyconstructed,seeingthemselvesascoconstructorsandcointerpretersof

themeaning(s)oforganizationaleventsalongwithsituationalmembers,reflectingontheir

ownrolesinshapingthoseinterpretations.

Lastly,althoughethnographyisthoughtbymanytohaveoriginatedin

anthropology,anhistoricalaccountofitsacademicoriginsshowsthattheyliein

administrativepractices,specificallyinempiresneedstomanagefarflunganddistant

outposts.Hence,itmightbebettertoregardacademicanthropologyasaspecificinstance

ofethnographicpracticethantheotherwayaround(Salemink2003,p.9).Those

organizationalethnographersnottrainedinanthropologydepartmentswhoareanxious

abouttheirmethodstrainingmanquandbonafidescan,then,relinquishtheseconcerns
 4
andgettoworkondevelopingandarticulatingwhatorganizationalethnographyisor

shouldbe,drawingonarichheritageoforganizationalethnographicresearch,ranging

fromgovernmentbureaucraciestoschools,fromhospitalstocoalmines.

Inwhatfollowswediscusstheusesofethnographyinorganizationalresearch,after

whichwepresentthreeexamplesofethnographicresearchtoillustratethepeculiar

problematicsoforganizationalethnography.Theseexamplesinformoursubsequent

discussionofthemultisited,reflexive,andrelationalcharacterofethnographicresearch.

II.Usesinorganizationalresearch:Historicaltothepresent

Organizationalethnographyenjoysalongheritage,acrossawiderangeof

organizationaltypesanddisciplinaryhomes.EltonMayos1920s1930sHawthornestudies

areacaseinpoint(e.g.,Mayo1933),asaretheclassic,late1940searly1960sindepth

analysesoftheinformalorganization,suchasWhyte(1948),Selznick(1949),Gouldner

(1954),Blau(1955),Dalton(1959),Goffman(1959/1983),Kaufman(1960),Roy(1960),

andCrozier(1964).Thesedetailedaccountsoforganizationallifebasedonfieldresearch

communicatethesenseofbeingthereamidstthesocialaspectsoforganizations,their

backstagepolitics,powergames,andotherunintended,nonrational,andattimes

dysfunctionalconsequences.Thesestudies,organizationalethnographyavantlalettre,

upendedthepurportedlyrationalorganizingthatMaxWebersidealtypebureaucracy

theories,depictingformalorganizationsasefficientlyfunctioningmachines,hadled

researcherstoexpect.

Thedevelopmentfromthe1950sonofmainframecomputers,surveyresearch,
 5

statisticalscience,andbehaviouralisttheorieseclipsedethnographicapproaches,as

researchaimingtomeasureorganizationalstructures,contingencies,andbehavioursby

quantitativemeanscametodominateorganizationalstudies.Towardtheendofthe1970s,

agrowinguneasewithsuchquantificationandtheconcomitantneglectofsocialactors

everydaypractices,livedexperiences,andprocessesofmeaningmakinggenerateda

renewedinterestinqualitativemethods.Theoreticaldevelopmentsacrossthesocial

sciences,amongthemtheinterpretiveandlinguisticturns(e.g.,Geertz1973,Rabinowand

Sullivan1979,1985),alsodrovethesemethodologicalchanges.Notableamongthe

theoristsleadingthismethodologicalrenewalinorganizationalstudiesisJohnVan

Maanen(e.g.,1979,1988,1995),whoseempiricalandmethodologicalworkboth

demonstratedandtheorizedtheplaceoforganizationalethnography.

Firstmanifestedinstudiesoforganizationalsymbolismandculture,therenewed

attentiontoethnographyalsoinvigoratedolderfieldsofstudy,fromstrategytoleadership,

organizationaldesignandchangetoworkplacepractices,crossculturalcommunicationto

ethicsandnormativebehaviour(see,e.g.,Barley1983,Collinson1992,Delbridge1998,

Dubinskas1988,IngersollandAdams1992,Kondo1990,Orr1996,Rosen2000,Watson

1994,Yanow1996).Ethnographic(andotherqualitative)researchstrategieshave

increasinglybeencomingbackintoorganizationalstudies,invarioustheoreticalcontexts

(see,e.g.,Bate1997,MoreyandLuthans1987,Schwartzman1993;morerecently,Fine,

Morrill,andSurianarain2009,Neyland2008,PrasadandPrasad2002,andYbemaetal.

2009).Ethnographiesofpublicsectororganizationsarealsoreturning,joiningtheearlier

bureaucracyandpublicadministrationworkofBlau,Crozier,Kaufman,andSelznickcited
 6
above(e.g.,Dubois2010,Stein2004),alongwithothersineducationalstudies,healthcare

studies,andotherfields.

Theintertwiningofethnographicmethodswithagrowinginterpretive

methodologicalawarenessmightbeseenashavingadvancedthestudyofparticular

organizationalstudiestopicsfrommorecollective,meaningfocusedperspectives,among

themorganizationalculture,identityformation,andorganizationallearning(e.g.,Brown

andHumphreys2002,CookandYanow1993/2006,Kunda1992,Nicolinietal.2003),

arenaserstwhiledominatedbymorepositivistpsychologicalandsocialpsychological

approaches.Fromthere,itwasnotabigleaptonarrativeordiscursiveapproaches(e.g.,

Ybema2010)ortothepracticestudies(e.g.,Orr1996,Miettinenetal.2009)thatjoin

activitytheoryandactornetworktheory,bothdrawingonethnographicmethods.Apart

fromitsabilitytodepictthelivelinessoforganizationallife,organizationalethnography

promisestoelucidatetwoaspectsforwhichothermethods,suchassurveys,areless

suitable:(1)itshiddendimensions,and(2)itsactorcontextrelations.

1.Sensitivitytohiddendimensionsoforganizationallife.Indrawingclosetosubjectsand

situations,organizationalethnographerscanpotentiallymakeexplicitoftenoverlooked,

tacitlyknownand/orconcealeddimensionsofmeaningmaking,amongthememotional

andpoliticalaspects.Innotingtherelativepoweroforganizationalactors,theirinterests

andtheirstrategies,ethnographiescanhaveadirect,critical,evenshockingquality,laying

bareotherwisehiddenandevenharshsocialrealitiesandexposingtheentanglementsof

culturewithpower.Fororganizationalmembers,suchexplicitdescriptionsofroutine,
 7

takenforgrantedwaysofthinkingandactingcanbebothfamiliarandsurprisingasthey

seethemselvesthroughtheethnographerseyes.Inrevealingtheseaspectsof

organizationallife,suchethnographiesmayattimeschallengewhatorganizationalactors

wouldliketohearorreadaboutthemselvesandtheirorganizations.Whileofferingamuch

neededcriticalvoice,suchethnographiesalso,however,requireethnographerstoconsider

theirownposition,theirpositionality(discussedbelow),andtheethicalimplicationsof

theirwork.

2.Sensitivitytotheinterplaybetweenactorsandcontext.Secondly,organizational

ethnographycancontributetocurrentstructureagencydebatesinthesocialsciencesthat

continuetocarveuporganizationalstudies(Reed2006),asitcombinesanorientation

towardsubjectiveexperienceandindividualagencywithsensitivitytothebroadersocial

settingsandthehistoricalandinstitutionaldynamicsinwhichtheseareembedded.

Alternatingcloseupsofactors,situationsandinteractionswithbroaderviewsthatsketch

widersocialandhistoricalcontexts,powerrelations,andmetadiscourses,ethnography

seestheworldinagrainofsand(slightlyparaphrasingWilliamBlake),exploringand

exemplifyingthegeneralthroughthelocalandtheparticular.Thecombinationof

contextualanalysiswithanactorcentredapproachpromisestoremedytheahistorical,

acontextualandaprocessualqualitiesofmuchoforganizationalstudies(Pettigrew,quoted

inBate1997:1155).

[Tocopyeditor:linebreaklefthereintentionally;nextpara.isnotcontinuationof
previousone]

 8
Ethnographysresearchtechniquestakeonparticularforminmeetingthespecific

demandsofmanagementandotherorganizationalsettings.Forone,researcherscannot

countonwalkinginonanexecutiveunannounced,andsoethnographictalkoftenincludes

formalinterviews.Mintzbergsstructuredobservation(1970),analternativetothediary

studiesusedatthetime,addeddirectobservationtothestudyofmanagers.Wolcotts

(1973)shadowing(ofaschoolprincipal)isyetanotherwaytoobserveorganizational

leadersethnographically.

Thevarietyofethnographicstudiesoforganizationsandorganizingisreflectedin

ourownfieldwork.Wedrawonthreeofthese,conductedindifferentperiodsandin

differentcontexts,toillustratetheattributesoforganizationalethnographydiscussed

above,itsrange,anditssensitivitytothehiddendimensionsoforganizationallifeaswellas

totheinterplaybetweencontextsandactors.Thesestudiesalsolaytheempirical

groundworkforoursubsequentdiscussionofthreecurrentissuesrelevantto

organizationalethnography:(1)multisitedresearchinwhichfieldworkersfollowactions,

actorsandartefacts;(2)highlyreflexiveresearchwithrespecttoknowledgeclaims;and

(3)highlyrelationalresearchthattreatsparticipantsascoresearchers.

III.Threeexamples

1.Collectiveidentityformationamongnewspapereditors(SierkYbema)

Theveryfirstdayofmy1997and1998fieldworkintheeditorialroomsoftwo

DutchnationalnewspapersstartedwiththedailymeetingofTrouwseditorialstaffatthe

endofthemorning(Ybema2003).Later,Ilearnedthatthesemeetingsusuallytookless
 9

than30minutesandwerefrequentedbynomorethan10editors.Thistime,however,the

roomwasstuffed,all25seatstaken,atleastanother25editorssittingontablesonthe

sidesorleaningagainstthewalls.Aprolongeddebateensuedaboutafrontpagearticlein

thatmorningsnewspaperwhichhadoutragedalargenumberofeditors.IfIwastruly

interestedinidentity,Ihadfoundmybreadbutteredonbothsides,editorsassuredme

afterwards.Followingthesediscussionsgavemeabeelinerightintothemiddleofthe

newspapersinternaldebatesaboutitsidentityandthusintothemoreorlessconcealed

powerandemotionriddendimensionsofmeaningmaking.Detaileddescriptionsofritual

gatheringsinorganizationalsettings,suchasChristmascelebrations(Rosen2000)or

informationalmeetings(Alvesson1996;seealsoSchwartzman1993),wereinthebackof

mymindwhenIdecidedtofocusmyresearchontheheateddiscussioninthiseditorial

meetingand,subsequently,tofollowtheformingofopiniononthatdaysopeningarticlein

conversations,ontheintranet,andinformalandinformalgettogethers.

ProcessesofdeideologizationinDutchsociety,alongwiththeprofessionalizationof

journalism,fromthe1960sonwardsandtheslowbutgradualdecreaseofnewspaper

readershipinthe1990shadcreatedaproblemofidentityandimageforthosenewspapers

thathaddrawninspirationfromtheirreligiousorpoliticalroots.Thisideologicaland

reputationalcrisischallengededitorsoftheoriginallyProtestantnewspaperTrouwand

thepoliticallyleftwingdeVolkskranttorethinktheiroveralldirection,refashionthe

papersprofiles,andtherebyfundamentallyreconsidertheorganizationalidentityofeach.

Iwasinterestedinthisintenseprocessofrenewedmeaningmaking,askinghowthat

collectiveidentitycametoberepresentedintheeverydaydiscourseofnewspapereditors
 10
nowthattheseinstitutionswerecutloosefromtheirideologicalmoorings.

ThroughouttheresearchIfollowedparticularissues,events,persons,andtexts.

ShadowingtheDayChiefand,subsequently,theNightChiefintheearlyweeksofmy

fieldwork,forinstance,providedanexcellent,16hourlongintroductionintotheeditorial

processandthetimepressures,groupsofprofessionals,andcontentdemandsitinvolved.

Identitydiscoursewascommonlypresentineverydaydiscussionsaboutactualpractices

andnewspapercontents,andIcloselyfolloweddebatesaboutparticularidentitysensitive

(andheavilydiscussed)issues,suchasthatfrontpagearticleatTrouworthejournalistic

profileofthenewweeklyVolkskrantmagazine.Usingthediscursiveinteractionsover

theseissuesastableauxvivantinmywritingandtreatingthemasatotalsocialfact

(Mauss1990[1925])acomprehensivesocialeventthatopensupwindowsonarangeof

relatedmicroeventsandbroadercontingenciesallowedmetotracethedifferentthreads

professional,political,ideological,commercialoftheprocessofidentityformation

knottedtogetherintheseissuesorincidents.Followingissues,events,persons,andtexts

onthemoveallowedmeinmyresearchnarrativetoprovideaviewoftheinsideor,more

accurately,themultipleinsidesofidentityformationprocesses,whilesimultaneously

sketchingthewidercontextsinwhichtheseinsideswereembedded(thesecondaspectof

organizationalethnographydescribedabove).InSergioLeonefilmicfashion,Ialternated

extremecloseupsthatzoominonpersonsin(inter)action,withtheirdetailedfacial

expressions,gestures,talk,andintonation,withwideangleorlongshotsthatzoomout

andshowpanoramicviewsofinstitutionalcontexts,historicalbackgrounds,power

relations,andsocietaldiscourses(cf.Nicolini2009).
 11

Influencedbythelinguisticturninthesocialsciencesandorganizationalstudies

growinginterestinidentityissues,Iadoptedadiscourseanalyticalapproach.Havingread

literaturethattheorizessocial,ethnic,andorganizationalidentitiesintermsofcontinuity,

distinctivenessandcohesion,includingdescribingorganizationalmembersfirm

positioningofasharedandstablecollectiveselfvisviscompetitorsorclients,Iwas

surprisedtonoticethateditorsdidnottrytorestoreorshoreuptheirprecarious,non

cohesive,collectiveselves.Instead,theyclaimedthatneithertheideologicalcontentof

theirnewspapernorthesymbolicboundariesbetweendifferentnewspaperscoulddefine

theircollectiveidentityinaclear,unifying,historicallyconsistentway.Ratherthanimpress

anoutsideworldofcompetitors,readersorthegeneralpublicbymakingselfpraising

comparisonswithothers(asisusuallydescribedintheidentityliterature),theeditors

emphasizedhistoricaldiscontinuities,theincreasingindistinctivenessofthenewspaper

visvisitscompetitors,andtheloomingdangeroflosingthecompetitionwiththose

others.Acondensedexplanationforwhytheeditorsengagedinthisunexpectedrhetoric

restsontheirfeltneedtostressthedramaofthesituation,toexpresstheirhopesandfears,

andtosellachangeprocessortoresistit(Ybema2010).

2.Sensemakinginlocalgovernment(MerlijnvanHulst)

Betweentheendof2003andthebeginningof2006,Iconductedethnographic

fieldworkintwoDutchmunicipalities(vanHulst2008a).Ihadnoformalpositioninthe

localgovernmentsunderstudy,butmyresearchroleandworkweresupportedbythe

administratorsandannouncedinalettertomunicipalemployeesandcouncilmembers.
 12
Eachmunicipalityprovidedadeskandaccesstoalmostallmeetingsandarchives.After

awhileIbegantositinontheweeklymeetingsofeachboardofaldermenwiththeir

respectivemayors.Thisgaveme,ontheonehand,anoverviewofthingshappeningineach

placeand,ontheother,asortoffieldworkrhythm.IneachmunicipalityIdecidedtozoom

inontwopoliticalandadministrativeprocessesthatpeopleIspoketoregardedashighly

relevanttothatmunicipality.

Althoughthefieldworkwashostedbyformalorganizations,thelocalbureaucracies

ofthetwotowns,myfocusonsensemakingprocessestookmebeyondtheboundariesof

theseorganizations.Iobservedmeetingsofthemunicipalitiesmanagementteams,mostof

thetowncouncilmeetings,andmanymeetingsofthevariouscouncilcommittees.In

additiontomeetingstakingplacewithinthemunicipalities,Ibecameinterestedin

presentationsofplanstomembersofthepublicoutsidethetownhalls.Ialsovisited

meetingsofpoliticalparties,soundingboards,andaneighbourhoodcommitteetofindout

howdifferentgroupsandindividualsmadetheirowninterpretationsofevents.

Beinginthefieldopeneddoorstoallkindsofdataanddatasourcesthatwould

otherwisehavebeenhardtoget.Theseincludedmeetingsthatwereclosedtothegeneral

public,informaldocuments,likeleafletsorhandwrittenspeeches,andunplannedcasual

conversationsatthephotocopymachine.InbothmunicipalitiesIobtainedcopiesofalarge

numberandvarietyofdocuments:agendasandminutesofmeetings,policydocuments,

politiciansspeeches,localandregionalnewspaperarticles,textsonmunicipality

webpages,materialsonpoliticalpartieswebsites,politicalpamphlets,andpolitical

programs.Inaddition,Ihadmanyconversationswithactorsinvolvedinorknowledgeable
 13

abouttheissuesunderstudy.Thecharacter,duration,timeandlocationofthese

conversationsdiffered.Mosttypicalweretheshortchatsinthehallwaysofthetownhalls

beforeoraftermeetingsandduringbreaks,longerconversationsduringlunchesand

dinners,andformal,openendedinterviewsinofficesandatpeopleshomes.Requiring

manyhoursinthefield,ethnographicfieldworkplacesdemandsontheresearcherssocial

andimprovisationalskills.Overall,ethnographicfieldworkofferedthepossibilityof

personallyexperiencingeventstakingplaceandprocessesunfolding(seealsovanHulst

2008b),andobservationmadeitpossibletogeneratedatathatwouldhavebeen

impossibletofindindocumentsandhardtogatherthroughinterviewingalone.

Onatheoreticallevel,thefieldworkenabledmetomovefromculturetonarrative.

Myinitialresearchpuzzlehadconcernedcultureinlocalgovernment.WhenIstudied

organizationalanthropologyinthesecondhalfofthe1990s,theconceptofcultureas

somethingsharedandstablewasnolongertheonlyviewinorganizationalstudies.

However,explainingthistopublicadministrationresearchersandpoliticalscientists,

especially,wasnotalwayseasy,duetotheirdisciplinesdifferentorientations.Following

organizationalscientistslikeLindaSmircich(1983),Idefinedorganizationalcultureasa

processofsensemaking.WhilewritingabouttheissuesIstudiedinthefirsttown,

however,Istumbleduponaconceptthatwasevenmorehelpfulinseeingwhatwasgoing

onthere:storytelling.AsIenteredmysecondfieldworkperiod,thatconcepthelpedme

understandmoreclearlyhowtheexperiencesIencounteredduringvariousformsof

observation,conversationandreadingconnectedpeopleinthefieldtoeachother,aswell

asmyselfasresearchertothefield.
 14

3.Implementingpublicpoliciesthroughorganizations(DvoraYanow)

Between19721975IworkedinaseriesofrolesintwoCommunityCenters,partof

agovernmentcorporationinIsrael,intwodifferenttowns,returningin198081for6

monthsfollowupobservation,interviewing,anddocumentanalysisfromabaseadjacent

tothenationalheadquarters(Yanow1996).Bothtownswereimmigranttownsremote

fromurbancenters,andtheagencysraisondtrewastoprovidenonformaleducational

andculturalactivitieslanguage,cooking,andphotographycourses,folkdancing,tennis,

etc.leadingtoresidentsintegrationintothestateandadoptionofitsnationalcultural

ethos.AsaCommunityOrganizer,myfirstrole,apositionfundedbytheHousingMinistry,

mysupervisorineachCenterhadmemapeachtownanditsneighbourhoods,notingthe

typeandconditionofhousingandinfrastructure(poorlighting,badsewerage,uncollected

garbage),thelocationsofservices(thetownhallanditsdepartments;banks,grocery

stores,markets,synagogues;youth,sports,union,andotherkindsofclubsandsocialhalls;

andsoon),andresidentsdemographiccharacteristics(yearofimmigration,ethnicgroup,

familysize,ages,etc.).AtonepointIbecameActingDirectorofthesecondCenter,

subsequentlybecomingdirectoroftwodepartments.Ialsobecameamemberofthe

corporationsnationaladvisorygroup,givingmeanoverviewofthelargeroperation.When

Ireturnedforthefollowupstudy,itwasasanonparticipatingobserver.

Myresearchquestiongrewoutoftheinitialexperience:whywasitsodifficultfor

mycommunityorganizercolleaguesandmyselftoaccomplishinthefieldwhatwethought

wehadaclearnationalmandatefor?Myundergraduatebackgroundinpoliticalscienceled
 15

metoframemyresearchasapolicyimplementationstudy,astheCommunityCenterswere

implementingnationalpublicpolicy.Tounderstandimplementation,Ineededtoknow

somethingaboutorganizations,theentitieschargedwithputtingpolicyintopractice.Yet

existingimplementationandorganizationaltheories,emphasizingrationaltechnical

decisionmakingandinstrumentalgoalsetting,didnothelpmeunderstandmyownlived

experience.USsocialscienceswerethenopeninguptosciencestudies,hermeneuticsand

phenomenology,andwhatcametobecalledtheinterpretiveturn,andthesereadings(e.g.,

Kuhn1962/1970,BergerandLuckmann1966,Geertz1973)ledmetoothersinsymbolic

culturalanthropologyandthephilosophyof(social)science.Icametoseetheeventsand

circumstancesIwasstudyingasentailingthecommunicationofpolicyandorganizational

meaningsthroughlanguage(especiallytheorganizationsnameandanorganizational

metaphor),materialobjects(thecenterbuildingsandtheirdesignandprograms),andacts

(organizationalritualsandtheirmythlikecomponents).Implementation,Isaw,was

enabledorconfoundedbyoverlapsordifferencesbetweenpolicyandorganizational

foundersandleadersintendedmeanings,embeddedinandcommunicatedthroughthose

elements,andtownresidentsandothersownreadingsofthoseelementsandtheir

meanings.

Giventheresearchfocusonmeaning,Icannotimagineconductingthestudyinany

otherway.Mytheorizinggrewoutoftheobservations,experiences,readings,and

conversationsthatIhadonsite,informedbyknowledgeoftheorganizationshistoryand

sociopoliticalcontextandbythetheoreticalliteraturesdebates.Experienceinthefirst

Centeraddedacomparativeangle.Withoutbeingthere,experiencingtheorganization,
 16
thetowns,theirphysicallayoutandproblems,andtheirresidentswaysoflife,Iwould

nothaveunderstoodthefoundersstatementthatthecommunitycenterwouldbea

functionalsupermarketIneededtoknowwhatsupermarketmeanttopeoplethereat

thattimetounderstanditsmeaningincommunitycenterterms.AsIwasinterestedin

presentdayproblems,historicalarchivalanalysis,whileengaging,wouldhavebeen

insufficient,evenwithinterviews;norwouldasurveyhaveenabledmetoexplorethe

meaningfocusedquestionsIwasinterestedin.

Thedisadvantageswerepersonal,ratherthanmethodsrelatedinthenarrowsense.

Beingonlocationinremotesettings,letaloneforeignones,forextendedperiodsoftime,

separatedfromfamilyandfriendsandonesfamiliarwayofliving,isnoteasy.The

literaturehasnotspokenmuchoftheemotionalstrainofprolongedfieldresearch(butsee

OrtbalsandRincker2009),letaloneofthesexualandotherphysicalaspectsthatcanpose

challengesrelationshipsbetweenresearchersandresearched;harassmentoffemale

researchers;beingoutinthefield(seeLewinandLeap1996);mobilityandother

problemsofwheelchairedness(MikeDuijn,personalcommunication,2009);theaging

fieldresearcherandotherbodily,emotional,mentalorsociallimitations.

IV.Contemporaryissuesinorganizationalethnography:Multisited,reflexive,and

relational

Theseresearchexamplesilluminatethreeissuesonthemethodologicaltabletoday:

ethnographysmultisitedness;reflexivity,includingontheresearcherspositionality;and

theintrinsicallyrelationalcharacterofethnographicfieldwork.
 17

1.Multisitedethnography.Thesettingsoftraditionalethnographyhadadistinctive

character:thelocationswererelativelyboundedorappearedthatway.Morerecently,

anthropologistshavestartedspeakingofmultisitedethnography,itsmarking

underscoringthedifferenceinthisconceptualization.Ourexamplessuggest,however,that

inorganizationalethnography,multisitednessisthenorm;itmayevenbeoneofits

distinctivecharacteristics,asorganizationalethnographerstypicallyfollowactors,actions,

artefacts,andtheideastheyembodyandreflect.Followingthesetravellingideas,persons,

andsoforthleadsresearcherstodifferentorganizationrelatedsites,especiallywhen

conceivingoforganizationsaslooselycoupledsystems,interorganizationalfieldsor

networks.WeseethisinYbemasfollowingofthenewspapereditorswork,decisions,

rituals,rumours,discussionsandthereport,newlogo,frontpage,product,etc.;invan

Hulstsfollowingofactorsandactsbothinternalandexternaltothemunicipalities;andin

YanowstrailingofselfcontainedCentersandtheparentorganization,aswellasof

oversightministries,fundingagenciesandoverseasdonorsandideas.Orr(1996)followed

copiertechniciansvisitingclientsandmeetingcolleaguesinmultiplelocationsfarfromthe

corporationscentraloffice.Indeed,suchfollowingcanmaketheresearchprocessseemto

meander,challengingtheresearchertotravelwithortrailissues,personsortextsto

variouslocations.Evenifoneremainswithinthewallsofasingleorganization,mapping

acrossitsdepartmentsandhierarchicallevelsoneisperforceengagedinamultisited

study.

 18
2.Reflexivityandpositionality.Reflexivity,includingontheresearcherspositionality,is

increasinglycentraltoethnographicresearch,inparticularthatinformedbya

constructivistinterpretivistmethodologyinwhichresearcherobjectivityisnot[assumed

tobe]present.Thiscastsinheightenedreliefthematteroftruthclaimsandwhat

positivistinformedresearchcallstheirvalidityandreliability.Asthoseterms

encapsulatethenotionthatresearchcanmirrortheworldbeingobserved,theyareless

appropriateforassessingresearchthatproceedsfromaconstructivistinterpretivist

perspective.Ratherthanseeingdataasexistingindependentlyoftheresearcher,waitingin

thefieldtobediscovered,interpretiveethnographerslookathowhappenstanceshaped

theiraccesstovariousorganizationalparts,persons,documents,etc.Thetruthclaims

questionpivotstohowbothdataandanalysesweregeneratedanddeveloped,requiring

reflectivetransparencyonresearcherspositionalityintwosenses:theirgeographic

locationwithintheorganization,andtheirdemographiccharacteristics,eitherofwhich

mightshapeaccessandsight,enablingsomethingswhilelimitingothers.Ratherthan

seeingthemselvesasobjective,uninvolveddiscoverersofpreexistingdata,interpretive

ethnographersseethemselvesasactivelyinvolvedinthe(co)constructionofthosedata,

andtheyseetheirnarrativesasalsoconstructingtheorganizationalrealitiestheyreport.

Whilereflectingonthesematterscouldcertainlybepartofthefieldresearchitself,such

reflexivityisprimarilymarshalledonthewrittenpage.

Locationbasedpositionalityisamatterofparticularconcerninorganizational

ethnography,giventhelinksbetweenhierarchy,knowledge,andpower.Researcherswho

immersethemselvesinbeingtheremakethemselvesmorelikelytobeassociatedwithor
 19

drawnintoaparticularperspective.TheCommunityCenterstudyssecondphase

illustratesonedimensionofthisproblematic:perceivingYanowascomingfromagency

Headquartersbecauseshewaslocatednearby,localCenterstaffattimestreatedthe

researchvisitasanopportunitytoputaparticularfaceonwhatwassaidandshown,

thinkingitawaytoconveymessagestotheCEO(despitethefactthatshehadnosuch

accesstohim).Inthenewspapercase,positionalitywasinterpretedinprofessionalterms:

somejournalistsseemedhighlysuspiciousthatYbemawouldwanttomakeheadlineswith

hisresearch,injournalisticfashion.Toovercomethis,hepositionedhimselfassomeone

notinterestedinheadlinesandscoops,whose(academic)bookwouldnotbeoutforat

leastayeartocome(whichmadethemmorecooperative,albeitpuzzledatthevalueof

suchoutdateddata).ForvanHulst,akindoflocationalpositionalityemergedinoneboard

meetingwhencivilservantswereaskedtoleavetheroomsothatboardmemberscould

haveaprivateconversation.Ashepackedhisethnographersgeartoleave,too,oneofthe

boardmembersannounced:Researcheroftheadministrationstays.Whileexperiencing

thisasbothsurpriseandhonour,vanHulstnotedthetrickinessofsuchapositioning,

whichmightaffecthisabilitytotakeacriticalstancetowardthoseinpower.Geographic

positionalitycanalsobeamatterofthe(in)sightaffordedbydifferentlocations,asPachirat

(2009)documentswithhispromotionfromslaughterhousefloortoQualityControl.

Initsdemographicsense,positionalityentailsthegender,raceethnic,class,age,

sexuality,andothercharacteristicsthatcanaffectaresearchersaccesstocertainsituations

and/or(categoriesof)persons,otherssensemakingoftheresearcher,andthe

researchersabilitytounderstandothersexperiences.Shehata(2006),forinstance,
 20
documentshowhisbirthplace,educationalattainment,socioeconomicbackground,

gender,andreligiousaffiliationshapedhowhewasperceivedontheshopfloor,whathe

wasallowedtodoandkeptfromdoing,andthekindsofsettingshecouldandcouldnot

enter.Interpretiveethnographersareincreasinglyexpectedtoprovidegreater

transparencyconcerningtheirmethodsandtheirpositionality,inallsensesoftheterm,as

awayofsupportingthetruthclaimstheyadvance.

3.ButIthoughtwewerefriends?!andotherissuesintherelationalcharacterofresearch.

Explicitrecognitionoftherelationalcharacteroffieldworkisincreasing,andalongwithit

bothethicalandmethodologicalimplications.Tobeginwith,ethnographersnegotiate

accesstotheirresearchsites;butwhereasthistraditionallywasseenasakindof

knockingontheadministrativeand/orchiefsdoor,todayitisincreasinglyseenasa

matterofestablishingandsustainingrelationshipsovertime.Thismakesaccessmorethan

aoneshotpermissionalactivity,astheessaysinFeldmanetal.(2003)makeclear.

Moreover,fieldworkfriendshipsrequirecare,includingmakingdecisionsabouthow

instrumentallytotreatthosewhomresearchersencounterorseekoutintheconductofthe

research:thereisadifferencebetweenconceivingofsituationalactorsaspropertiesofthe

researcher(myinformants)andtreatingtheminBuberianIThoufashion.Whatwill

happentofieldworkrelationshipswhentheresearcherconcludeshis/hertimeinthefield?

Andwhatslightsorbetrayalsmightbringasituationalmembertoexclaim,inangerand/or

anguish,ButIthoughtwewerefriends?!(Beechetal.2009).

Asecondaspectoftherelationalcharacterofethnographicresearchlinksto
 21

epistemologicalconcerns:theresearchersneedtobecomeasfamiliaraspossiblewiththe

localcultureinordertounderstanditsworkings,whilemaintainingenough

epistemologicalstrangernessthatrecognitionofthecommonsense,theeveryday,the

unspoken/unwritten,andthetacitretainsitsanalyticpurchase(see,e.g.,Ybemaand

Kamsteeg2009).Thewaysofknowingandkindsofknowledgeentailedinthisbalancing

havebeencalledemic/etic(seeHeadland,Pike,andHarris1990),insider/outsider(e.g.,

BartunekandLouis1996),experiencenear/experiencedistant(Geertz1973).ForYbema,

forinstance,workingtoremainarelativeoutsidertothenewspaperandtopreservesome

oftheinitialsurprisewasasimportantasworkingtobecomeaninsiderandtoachieve

immersion.Thelongtimeittookhimtounderstandtheimplicationsofhisobservations

wasfrustrating,butitwasonlythroughtakingseriouslyhisownbewildermentthatnew

insightsemerged.

Someconfusionhasdeveloped,however,particularlyinorganizationalstudies,

concerningwhatitmeanstobeaninsiderasaresearcher.Istheaimtrulytoloseones

outsiderstatus?Isthatevenconceivable?Theontologicalpossibilityoforganizational

outsidersbecominginsidersastheyseektoaddlocal,emicknowledgetotheoryrooted

eticknowledgeisfarmorefraughtthanhasbeenacknowledgedtodate.Insider/outsider

objectifieslocalinformants,treatingthemasameanstowardtheresearchersendsin

waysthatnullifytherelationalcharacteroffieldresearch.Ontheepistemologicalsideof

things,emic/eticreifiesthenotionthatlocalknowledgeandtheoreticalknowledgeare

separatekinds.Ininteraction,thetwotermpairsnegatethehermeneutic

phenomenologicalnotionthatknowledge,orunderstanding,iscocreatedininteraction
 22
betweenresearchersandtheirsituationalpartners,neitherofwhomcanbecomethe

other(withthepossibleexceptionofnativeanthropologists,Narayan1993;Nenceland

Yanow2008).Onthis,furthertheorizingiscalledfor.

V.Whyorganizationalethnography?

Toconclude,weengagethematterofwhatmightleadanorganizationalresearcher

toundertakeanethnographicstudy.Currentmethodologicaldebatesoftenstipulatethat

thechoiceofmethodshouldbedrivenbytheresearchquestion,ratherthanviceversa.

Althoughinsympathywiththisargument,wethinkitshortchangesthematterinimplying

thatmethodsarechoseninanentirelyrationalfashion.Ourownresearchandteaching

experiencessuggest,instead,thatresearchquestionsandmethodsaremuchmore

mutuallyconstitutedandattimesaresointricatelyboundupwitheachotherastobe

inseparable.Oursenseofthislinksstronglytothethirdunderstandingofethnography

namedintheopeningsection.

Anethnographicsensibilityisnotsomethingthataresearcherjustsetsaside;

neitherisitsomethingthatonepicksupasonewouldselectamethodfromatoolbox,a

commonmetaphorinmethodstextbooks.Atleastoneofuswouldwanttosaythather

questionmethodspacketchoseher,ratherthanviceversameaningthattheir

developmentwasintertwined,aswellasbeinglinkedtoher(unspoken)proclivities.For

anotherofus,traininginsurveyresearchandstatisticalanalyseshadprovidedlittle

knowledgeofotherresearchtraditions;still,hewasstronglydrawntoprocessesof

meaningmakingandorganizationalpowergames,believingthesenotionswouldhelphim
 23

understandwhatactuallywentonintheorganizationhewasstudying.Thispredilection

formeaningfocusedresearchandqualitativemethodswasalsoinspiredbyopportunity

(goodaccesstoinnerdecisionmakingcircles)andsituation(strongdisagreements

surfacinginthefieldwhichwerehardtoignore).

Althoughthispositionmaybeinkeepingwithahermeneuticphenomenological

stance,itisdrivennotbyourphilosophicalpresuppositionsbutbyourlivedexperiences,

asbothresearchersandteachers,inwhichwehaveseenpeople,ourselvesincluded,drawn

toframingresearchquestionsinparticularwaysthatcallonparticularmethodsbecauseof

waysofseeingandknowingthatprecededtheresearchproject,reflectingsomethingmuch

deeperthanarationalinstrumentalchoiceoftool.

Ethnographicresearchisacomplexpractice.Althoughreadingaboutorganizational

ethnographyandreadingwellwrittenorganizationalethnographiescandefinitelyhelp

researchersbecomegoodethnographers,itspracticeislargelylearnedthroughthedoing

inthefieldasoneexperiencesanddevelopsacertainsensibilityfororganizational

ethnographyitself.Thissuggeststhatadiscussionofethnographysadvantages

disadvantagesismisplacedtotheextentthatitrestsonthoseveryrationalconsiderations

andchoicesthatwethinkdonotwelldescribetheresearchexperience.Organizationaland

otherscholarsneed,instead,toknowwhatethnographicmethodsdowellandlesswelland

perhapstofocusmoreonenablingstudentsandcolleaguestorecognizetheirownpersonal

strengthsandlimitationsandhowthosemightplayoutintheconductofethnographic

research.

 24
VI.Forfurtherreading

Attentiontoorganizationalethnographyhasrecentlytakenoff,garneringattention

throughworkshops,conferences,journalspecialissues,andmethodsfocusedbooks,

leadingustoanticipateasurgeinmonographs.Kunda(1992)andOrr(1996)remainthe

mostcitedasleadingexemplarsofthegenre.Forintroductionstoorganizational

ethnographicmethodsandmethodologicalconcerns,seeNeyland(2007),Kostera(2007),

andYbemaetal.(2009).Thefirsttwoofthesefocusmoreonmethods,conveying

somethingofthehowtoofethnographicresearch,withintroductorychaptersonculture,

ethnography,andorganizations(Kostera)andtreatmentsofthewholeresearchprocess

illustratedbyvariousorganizationalethnographies(Neyland).Thethirdismore

methodologicalinorientation;itbothintroducesandcriticallydiscussesvariouspractices

inorganizationalethnography,tacklingkeychallengesandmethodological,analytical,

(re)presentational,ethical,andsocialproblematicsthatariseinthedoingandwritingof

organizationalethnography.Foranoverviewofethnographyspastandpotential

contributionstoorganizationalstudies,seeFineetal.(2009).Whilenotspecificto

organizationalstudies,Atkinsonetal.(2001)isanoutstandingcollectionofessayson

methodologicalissuesofconcerntoorganizationalethnographers.

References

Alvesson,Mats(1996)Communication,powerandorganization.Berlin:DeGruyter.

 25

Atkinson,Paul,Coffey,Amanda,Delamont,Sarah,Lofland,John,andLofland,Lynn(eds)

(2001)Handbookofethnography.London:Sage.

Barley,Stephen(1983)Semioticsandthestudyofoccupationalandorganizational

cultures,AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,28(3):393413.

Bartunek,JeanM.andLouis,MerylReis(1996)Insider/outsiderteamresearch.Thousand

Oaks,CA:Sage.

Bate,S.Paul(1997)Whateverhappenedtoorganizationalanthropology?,Human

Relations,50(9):114771.

Beech,Nic,Hibbert,Paul,MacIntosh,Robert,andMcInnes,Peter(2009)ButIthoughtwe

werefriends?,inSierkYbema,DvoraYanow,HarryWels,andFransKamsteeg(eds)

Organizationalethnography,196214.London:Sage.

Berger,PeterL.andLuckmann,Thomas(1966)Thesocialconstructionofreality.NewYork:

AnchorBooks.

Blau,Peter(1955)Thedynamicsofbureaucracy.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

 26
Brown,AndrewD.andHumphreys,Michael(2006)Epicandtragictales:Makingsenseof

change,JournalofAppliedBehavioralScience,39(22):12144.

Collinson,DavidL.(1992)Managingtheshopfloor.Berlin:DeGruyter.

Cook,ScottD.andYanow,Dvora(2006/1993)Cultureandorganizationallearning,in

BarbaraCzarniawska(ed.)Organizationtheory,vol.1,25976.Cheltenham,UK:Edward

Elgar.

Crozier,Michel(1964)Thebureaucraticphenomenon.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Dalton,Melville(1959)Menwhomanage.NewYork:Wiley.

Delbridge,Rick(1998)Lifeonthelineincontemporarymanufacturing.Oxford:Oxford

UniversityPress.

Dubinskas,FrankA.(ed)(1988)Makingtime:Ethnographiesofhightechnology

organizations.Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.

Dubois,Vincent(2010)Thebureaucratandthepoor.Aldershot:Ashgate.

Feldman,MarthaS.,Bell,Jeannine,andBerger,MicheleTracy(eds)(2003)Gainingaccess.
 27

WalnutCreek,CA:Altamira.

Fine,GaryAlan,Morrill,CalvinandSurianarain,Sharmi(2009)Ethnographyin

organizationalsettings,inDavidA.BuchananandAlanBryman(eds)TheSagehandbookof

organizationalresearchmethods,60219.London:Sage.

Frost,PeterJ.,Martin,Joanne,Moore,LarryF.,Lundberg,CraigC.andLouis,MerylReis

(eds)(1991)Reframingorganizationalculture.London:Sage.

Geertz,Clifford(1973)Theinterpretationofcultures.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Gouldner,AlvinW.(1954)Patternsofindustrialbureaucracy.NewYork:FreePress.

Headland,ThomasN.,Pike,KennethL.,andHarris,Marvin(eds)(1990)Emicsandetics:

Theinsider/outsiderdebate.NewburyPark,CA:Sage.

Ingersoll,VirginiaHillandAdams,Guy(1992)Thetacitorganization.Greenwich,CT:JAI

Press.

Kaufman,Herbert(1960)Theforestranger.Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsPress.

Kondo,Dorinne(1990)Craftingselves.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.
 28

Kostera,Monika(2007)Organisationalethnography.Lund:StudentlitteraturAB.

Kuhn,Thomas(1970)Thestructureofscientificrevolutions,2nded.Chicago:Universityof

ChicagoPress.(1stedn,1962)

Kunda,Gideon(1992)Engineeringculture.Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.

Lewin,EllenandLeap,WilliamL.(eds)(1996)Outinthefield.Urbana:UniversityofIllinois

Press.

Mauss,Marcel(1990)Thegift.London:Routledge.(1stedn,1925)

Mayo,Elton(1933)Thehumanproblemsofindustrialcivilization.NewYork:Macmillan.

Miettinen,Reijo,SamraFredericks,Dalvir,andYanow,Dvora(2009)Returntopractice,

OrganizationStudies,30(12):130927.

Mintzberg,Henry(1970)Structuredobservationasamethodtostudymanagerialwork,

JournalofManagementStudies,7(1):87104.

Morey,NancyC.andLuthans,Fred(1987)Anthropology:Theforgottenbehavioralscience
 29

inmanagementhistory,inFrankHoy,ed.,BestPapersProceedingsofthe47thAnnual

MeetingoftheAcademyofManagement,128132.Athens,GA:UniversityofGeorgia.

Narayan,Kirin(1993)Hownativeisanativeanthropologist?,AmericanAnthropologist,

95:67186.

Nencel,LorraineandYanow,Dvora(2008)Onmethodologicalrelics:Reconsideringetic

outsiders,emicinsiders,andfieldworkrelationships.PresentedattheEuropean

AssociationofSocialAnthropologists,Ljubljana(2630August).

Neyland,Daniel(2008)Organizationalethnography.London:Sage.

Nicolini,Davide(2009)Zoominginandzoomingout:Apackageofmethodandtheoryto

studyworkpractices,inSierkYbema,DvoraYanow,HarryWels,andFransKamsteeg(eds)

Organizationalethnography,12038.London:Sage.

Nicolini,Davide,Gherardi,Silvia,andYanow,Dvora(2003)Towardapracticebasedview

ofknowingandlearninginorganizations,inKnowinginorganizations:Apracticebased

approach,331.Armonk,NY:MESharpe.

Orr,Julian(1996)Talkingaboutmachines.NewYork,NY:CornellUniversityPress.

 30
Ortbals,CandiceD.andRincker,MegE.(eds)(2009)Fieldwork,identities,and

intersectionality:Asymposium,PS:PoliticalScience&Politics42(2):287385.

Pader,Ellen(2006)Seeingwithanethnographicsensibility,inDvoraYanowand

PeregrineSchwartzShea(eds)Interpretationandmethod,16175.Armonk,NY:ME

Sharpe.

Prasad,AnshumanandPrasad,Pushkala(2002)Thecomingofageofinterpretive

organizationalresearch,OrganizationalResearchMethods,5(1):411.

Rabinow,PaulandSullivan,WilliamM.(eds)(1979,1985)Interpretivesocialscience,1st

and2ndeds.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Reed,Michael(2006)Organizationaltheorizing,inStewartR.Clegg,CynthiaHardy,Thomas

B.LawrenceandWalterR.Nord(eds)TheSagehandbookoforganizationstudies,2ndedn,19

54.London:Sage.

Rosen,Michael(2000)Turningwords,spinningworlds.Amsterdam:Harwood.

Roy,Donald(1960)Bananatime,HumanOrganization,18:15668.

 31

Salemink,Oscar(2003)Ethnography,anthropologyandcolonialdiscourse,inThe

ethnographyofVietnam'sCentralHighlanders,139.London:RoutledgeCurzon.

Schwartzman,HelenB.(1993)Ethnographyinorganizations.NewburyPark,CA:Sage.

Selznick,Philip(1949)TVAandthegrassroots.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Shehata,Samer(2006)Ethnography,identity,andtheproductionofknowledge,inDvora

YanowandPeregrineSchwartzShea(eds)Interpretationandmethod,24463.Armonk,NY:

MESharpe.

Smircich,Linda(1983)Studyingorganizationsascultures,inGarethMorgan(ed)Beyond

method,16072.London:Sage.

Stein,SandraJ.(2004)Thecultureofeducationpolicy.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

vanHulst,MerlijnJ.(2008a)Townhalltales.Delft:Eburon.

vanHulst,MerlijnJ.(2008b)Quiteanexperience:Usingethnographytostudylocal

government,CriticalPolicyAnalysis,2(2):14359.

VanMaanen,John(1979)Thefactoffictioninorganizationalethnography,Administrative
 32
ScienceQuarterly,24:53950.

VanMaanen,John(1988)Talesofthefield.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

VanMaanen,John(1995)Anendtoinnocence:Theethnographyofethnography,in

Representationinethnography,135.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Watson,Tony(1994)Insearchofmanagement.London:Routledge.

Weick,Karl(1979)Thesocialpsychologyoforganizing,2ndedn.NewYork:McGrawHill.

Whyte,WilliamF.(1948)Humanrelationsintherestaurantindustry.NewYork:

McGrawHill.

Yanow,Dvora(1996)Howdoesapolicymean?Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversity

Press.

Yanow,Dvora(2000)Conductinginterpretivepolicyanalysis.NewburyPark,CA:Sage.

Ybema,Sierk(2003)Dekoersvandekrant:VertogenoveridentiteitbijTrouwende

Volkskrant[Discoursesontraditionandtransition:Conflictaboutthenewspapersidentity

amongeditorsofTrouwanddeVolkskrant].Amsterdam:VUUniversityAmsterdam.
 33

Ybema,Sierk(2010)Talkofchange,OrganizationStudies31(4):481503.

Ybema,SierkandKamsteeg,Frans(2009)Makingthefamiliarstrange,inS.Ybemaetal.

(eds)Organizationalethnography,10119.London:Sage.

Ybema,Sierk,Yanow,Dvora,Wels,Harry,andKamsteeg,Frans(2009)Studyingeveryday

organizationallife,inS.Ybemaetal.(eds)Organizationalethnography,120.London:Sage.