boyle and parry 2007 ethnography

7/27/2019 Boyle and Parry 2007 Ethnography

1/7

Culture and Organization, September 2007, Vol. 13(3), pp. 185190

Telling the Whole Story: The Case for

Organizational AutoethnographyMAREE BOYLE and KEN PARRY*

Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Nathan Campus, Brisbane, Qld 4111, AustraliaTaylorandFrancisLtdGSCO_A_248525.sgm10.1080/14759550701486480Culture& Organization1475-9551 (print)/1477-2760 (online)OriginalArticle2007Taylor&Francis133000000September [email protected]

We propose that autoethnography has a fruitful contribution to make to organizational research. The ethno-graphic process has always been an essential way of studying culture, including organizational culture. Theintrospective and retrospective nature of autoethnography can enhance understanding of the link between theindividual and the organization very effectively. The intensely reflexive nature of autoethnography allows theorganizational researcher to make that link. An aesthetic style of prose helps. An increasing use of first personnarrative in organizational research also helps. Co-constructed autoethnography is proposed. The intenselyemotive and personal nature of autoethnography impacts upon the sensemaking of the reader. The extant liter-ature can be weaved into the autoethnographic narrative.

Key words: Organizational autoethnography; Introspective; Retrospective; Reflexive

INTRODUCTION

During the process of putting this edition together, we often wrestled with the notion of exactly

what constituted organizational autoethnography. In particular, we grappled with how one

could truly differentiate organizational autoethnography from organizational ethnography. In

our attempt to answer the so what? question of how well autoethnography can enhance our

understanding organizational processes and cultures, we concluded that establishing method-

ological demarcation between ethnography and autoethnography was not the most valuable

exercise in this instance. Rather, we realised that the papers featured in this edition illustrate

the common methodological, ethical and personal challenges that confront organizational

autoethnographers.

Therefore, we envisage that this edition will commence a long and fruitful conversation

about how and why autoethnography has the potential to make full bodied theoretical contri-

butions to the study of organization and culture. We contend that the prime focus of an orga-

nizational autoethnographic study is to illuminate the relationship between the individual andthe organization in a way that crystallises the key conceptual and theoretical contributions to

understanding the relationship between culture and organization. Indeed, the ethnographic

process has always been an essential way of studying culture, especially culture as it is

practiced and understood within institutional and organizational settings. In the spirit of

Carolyn Ellis (1997) work on introspective and retrospective forays into the self, we propose

that the study of organizations and culture can be significantly enhanced by inclusion of

work conducted and located within the autoethnographic genre. In particular, the intensely

*Email: [email protected]


2/7

186 M. BOYLE AND K. PARRY

reflexive nature of autoethnography as an autobiographical form of research allows the orga-

nizational researcher to intimately connect the personal to the cultural through a peeling

back of multiple layers of consciousness, thoughts, feelings and beliefs.

Hence, we have identified elements within the autoethnographic method that allow for

insightful, culturally rich readings of organizational life. First, this approach has the ability to

connect the everyday, mundane aspects of organizational life with that of broader political

and strategic organizational agendas and practices. Second, we propose that autobiographical

and retrospective approaches are more likely to unearth and illuminate the tacit and subaltern

aspects of organization. For example, an effective piece of autoethnographic writing will

always engage the reader to the point where organizational processes such as emotional

ambivalence, organizational deadlocks and roadblocks, and the variable and vicarious nature

of organizational relationships are brought into stark relief.

Third, we acknowledge that there is no perfect methodology and autoethnography does

have its problems (Morse, 2000). We also admit that exposing the vulnerable self through

autobiographical processes can be fraught with personal and professional risk and, in some

instances, can be considered the most dangerous fieldwork of all (Lee, 1995; Rose, 1990;Kleinman and Copp, 1993). However, we do challenge critics of this method by suggesting

that we may need to move beyond triangulation as the only way of determining validity in

qualitative research. We propose an extension of Richardsons (2000) work where she

suggests that the imagery of the crystal is more useful than one of the triangle, especially for

interpretive work. The autoethnographic approach is one that younger researchers may

consider a more acceptable form of social enquiry, especially in a world where there are

myriad avenues to establish and create the public and reflexive self, such as personal blogs,

MySpace, YouTube, and reality TV, to name a few.

LINKING THE MICRO WITH THE META

At first glance, it is often difficult to comprehend how intensely personal, and sometimes

harrowing, accounts of organizational life could provide a better understanding of the link

between individual lived experience and the more rarefied and objective meta aspects of

organization. By its very nature, autoethnography is characterised by personal experience

narratives (Denzin, 1989), auto-observation (Adler and Adler, 1994), personal ethnography

(Crawford, 1996), lived experience (van Maanen, 1990), self-ethnography, (van Maanen,

1995), reflexive ethnography (Ellis and Bochner, 1996), ethnobiography, (Lejeune, 1989),

emotionalism (Gubrium and Holstein, 1997), experiential texts, (Denzin, 1997), and autobio-graphical ethnography (Reed-Danahay, 1997). Thus, autoethnographic accounts are charac-

terised by a move from a broad lens focus on individual situatedness within the cultural and

social context, to a focus on the inner, vulnerable and often resistant self. In an organizational

autoethnographic account, the lens moves from cultural and social situatedness to the inner

self and then back again to the situated individual. Therefore, an ethnography does not end at

the personal, as there are constant reminders throughout the text of how the individual self

interacts with, resists, cajoles, and shapes the organizational and institutional context in

which he or she is situated.

A central feature of autoethnography is the use of an aesthetic style of text, which may take

a variety of formspersonal essays, poetry, short stories, journals, stream of consciousness,

detailed unstructured interview narratives and other forms of fragmented writing. Through

these (usually) first-person accounts, the (sometimes) multiple and (often) fragmented lead-


3/7

THE CASE FOR ORGANIZATION AUTOETHNOGRAPHY 187

first person in the write-up of management research indicates heightened acceptance of the

self-narrative as a form of sensemaking within organizational life. We also acknowledge that

the commonalities between organizational ethnography and organizational autoethnography

include the need for an aesthetic elementin other words, it needs to read well, and the

researcher needs to be able to write well and write truthfully (Ellington, 2001).

Within this special edition, the five papers reflect the rich and evocative style that ethno-

graphic approaches can bring to organizational research. In addition to this, these papers also

demonstrate how autoethnographic methods can achieve a deeper verstehen of organizational

life, including sensemaking, construction of organizational identities, evaluation of leadership,

and the construction of a myriad of moral/emotional narratives such as fear of organizational

failure,jouissance, sadness and anger.

In their papers, Blenkinsopp and Vickers have used autoethnographic accounts as a way of

creating sense out of extremely difficult, painful and damaging organizational circumstances.

For Blenkinsopp, his account of the fear of career failure as an experienced human resource

professional occurs through the engagement of retrospective memoir coupled with an intensive

reflexive re-positioning of the authors organizational identity in relation to his supervisor andwork colleagues. Within this paper, the use of a sensemaking framework enables the author

to step behind his narrative, which enables him to see more lucid reflections of his own

organizational identity.

In the case of Vickers disturbing real-time account of workplace bullying, her focus is

on a truth narrative, whereby events which may be dismissed in isolation, when brought

together as a sequential bearing of witness, clearly illustrate the power of autoethnographic

narrative in unearthing the sinister, buried aspects of organizational life. As well, Vickers

use of traditional ethnographic data collection methods through reference to field notes

throughout the paper, illustrates how traditional data can used in conjunction with the more

formless data emerging from retrospection and memory.Duartes study originally commenced as a partnership programme in urban sustainability

via the use of post-positivist methodology. This led her to a self-reflective ethnography

about her lived experience within a particular cultural community. Duartes paper highlights

the need for organizational autoethnographers to fully acknowledge the pre-existing tradition

of organizational research within which they commenced their research journey.

Yarborough and Lowes papers anguished yet winsome account describes the impact upon

leadership and motivation during senior management succession at the first authors family

business. The intertwining narratives of fear, grief and hope experienced by the family business

heir demonstrates how autoethnography can play a vital role within small business research.

This paper also illustrates that autoethnographic accounts can be authored successfully by morethan the author as data.

Riads joyful and insightful account of accommodating motherhood and academic life

clearly confirms much of the extant literature about the nature of work-life balance. In addition,

Riad was able to differentiate between the notion of balance and choice through exploring

the notion of how each individual will live out their own balance, sacrificing neither work

nor life.

Although we unashamedly promote organizational autoethnography as a valid methodol-

ogy, we are not eschewing many decades of ethnographic organizational research. Neither

are we suggesting that previous research is methodologically deficient, and that autoethnog-

raphy should be used in all phenomenological studies. Instead, we suggest this might be the

right time for autoethnography to start making a substantial contribution to organizational

studies.


4/7


significant impact upon the reader. For example, two reviewers of Vickers work wrote of her

experience having an effect on them for days after the reading. We contend that the value of

autoethnography emerges from the emotive impact that facilitates an understanding about

organizational processes and therefore the subsequent cognitive impact.

We also contend that the intensely personal process of identity construction is best docu-

mented through an autoethographic approach. Yarborough and Lowes central identity of heir

apparent to the family business is as an amalgam of four other identities. The use of techniques

common in fiction writing work to expose the development and construction of identities

central to the ethnography, can be used without compromising authenticity or rigour. A plau-

sible defence of the validity of such an amalgam character can be found in Bhaskars (1978)

work where which challenges the notion that there is only one interpretation of reality.

Both Duartes and Yarborough and Lowes works illustrate that there is significant poten-

tial for co-constructed organizational autoethnography, particularly in organizational settings

where it is difficult for a solo ethnographer to observe mundane or quotidian actions or

processes.

We also acknowledge that the strength of organizational autoethnography is demonstratedthrough its ability to weave the extant literature into the narrative that the author presents. To

do so is normally proscribed in mainstream organizational research methodologies. However,

in organizational autoethnography, it is a strength, and several papers in this edition do this

quite well. At present, it is difficult to find published examples of organizational autoethnog-

raphy, where the narrative is woven through the extant organizational literature. An excep-

tion is Edgar Scheins (2006) fascinating travel through his career, which could fall within

this category. He uses the metaphor of the drama and music as the integrating theme as he

takes the reader on this journey. At the one time, he is able to bring together autoethnography

with aesthetic method and leadership development. To be sure, the majority of the literature

that he cites is his own, and we would propose that organizational autoethnography needs tocite extant theory and make a contribution to organizational theory.

Finally, we argue that the major contribution organizational autoethnography can make

to the study of organization and culture lies in the very meaning of the word ethnography.

Whether one reads the write-up of a worldwide survey where n = 20,000 and the findings

are generalisable, or one has read an autoethnography where n = 1, and the findings are

substantive to the experience of just one person, how the findings are reported influences

the impactof the original piece of research. In other words, the impact is no more and no

less than the reading of the manuscript by each individual reader. While one paper may

impact due to its cognitive nature, so too would another paper due to its emotional and

evocative nature. We would suggest that the critical n factor in much organizationalresearch is the number of people who read the research, rather than the number of people

who are the subjects of the research.

Critics of autoethnographic approaches may argue that a researcher as research instrument

and source of data has little control, in a positivist sense, over the research process. Such crit-

ics would also contend that the researcher needs to be in total control of the research process

and hence be able to take the research where it needs to go. We argue that the process of

conducting autoethnography throws down a challenge to this notion of researcher as control-

ler. We argue that the process of creating an autoethnographic account involves, in one sense,

an acknowledgement that there is no guarantee of a correlation between the degree of control

a researcher exercises over the research process, and the resultant impact on a reader.

Ellis and Bochner (1996, 2000) have reminded us that autoethnography expresses how

we struggle to make sense of our experiences. This is usually achieved via encouraging


5/7

THE CASE FOR ORGANIZATION AUTOETHNOGRAPHY 189

the organizational audience. Several papers within this edition have linked sensemaking

with autoethnographic method. In one sense, all organizational research helps the reader to

make sense of the phenomenon under investigation. However, sensemaking is more than just

the outcome of researchit refers to the cognitive impact of the research, which combined

with the affective or emotive impact are genre of organizational research.

Autoethnography can expose the reader to stories that would other wise be shrouded in

secrecy (Ellis and Bochner, 1996: 25). Hence, organizational autoethnographies can provide

first-hand accounts of taboo topics such as sexual harassment and bullying, motherhood at

work, various moral dilemmas and highly charged emotional situations in the workplace.

These are situations that otherwise remain shrouded in secrecy, or are considered untouch-

able by serious organizational researchers. Consequently, autoethnography can open the

door to these fascinating and hugely important organizational phenomena.

The narrative that is organizational autoethnography is an explanation of what has

happened in the past. It is not a prediction about what will happen in the future to other

people in similar situations. Much organizational research presumes to be able to predict the

future as a result of the findings of the research. However, Fleetwood and Hesketh (2006)provide a persuasive argument that much organizational research can only explain the past

and cannot predict the future, in spite of many claims to the contrary. It is still the responsi-

bility of the individual reader to make up her or his mind about the predictive validity of what

they read in scholarly journals about the experiences of others.

In this sense, organizational autoethnography has no less predictive validity than any other

organizational research. In fact, the emotive power of this research makes it a more powerful

explanation of phenomena. Therefore, this impact alone might make organizational autoeth-

nography a more powerful research genre than most mainstream organizational research.

We would agree with Fleetwood and Hesketh that the research domain is not the closed

system that many researchers would like to think it is. The number and influence of vari-ables is so many and so great that organizational research simply cannot be constrained to a

closed loop system. In a sense, organizational ethnography recognises this dilemma. By

researching the phenomenon in its entirety, the problems associated with attempting to

close an open-loop system are avoided.

Brevity and parsimony have a place in organizational autoethnographic research. The

author is engaging in a narrative. It must be an engaging narrative. The storyline need not be

compromised by or congested with too many references to standing by the coffee machine

or opening the door as he entered the room. The author can benefit from the skill of the

wordsmith and the storyteller. After all, the autoethnography is more like the screenplay for a

historical documentary than the verbatim transcript of an interview. If the autoethnographyreads like the latter, the impact on the reader (the audience) will be compromised.

Because organizational autoethnography is oriented so strongly toward the past, we cannot

use the criterion of historical bias as a criterion for the validity of the research. In fact, we

would advocate that the historical dimension is the strength of organizational autoethnography.

In retrospect, and in the cold hard light of day, and with all the emotionality drained from the

narrative, we can appraise the validity of the contribution to theory more clearly. In conclusion,

within an ideal world, every organizational research project would include a hyper-reflexive

component which could take on autoethnographic forms. In this way, we could then learn how

research is purely constructed, rather than just learning how to do research.

References


6/7


Bhaskar, R. (1978) A Realist Theory of Science, New York: Harvester Press.Crawford, L.C. (1996) Personal ethnography, Communication Monographs, 63, 15870.Denzin, N. (1989) Interpretive Interactionism, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Denzin, N.K. (1997) Interpretive Ethnography: Ethnographic Practices for the 21st Century, Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds) (1994) The Handbook of Qualitative Research,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ellington, L.L. (2001) Then you know how I feel: Empathy, identification, and reflexivity in fieldwork. In: A. Bryman(Ed) EthnographyVolume IV, London: Sage.

Ellis, C. (1997) Evocative autoethnography. In: W.G. Tierney and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds) Representation and the Text,New York: State University of New York Press.

Ellis, C. and Bochner, A. (1996) Composing Ethnography: Alternative Forms of Qualitative Writing, Walnut Creek,CA: Sage.

Ellis, C. and Bochner, A. (2000) Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In: N. Denzinand Y. Lincoln (Eds) Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fleetwood, S. and Hesketh, A. (2006) Prediction in social science: The case of research on the human resourcemanagement-organisational performance link, Journal of Critical Realism, 5(2), 22850.

Gubrium, J.F. and Holstein, J.A. (1997) Emotionalism. In: J.F. Gubrium and J.A. Holstein (Eds) The New Languageof Qualitative Method, New York: Oxford University Press.

Kleinman, S. and Copp, M.A. (1993) Emotions and Fieldwork, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Lee, R.M. (1995) Dangerous Fieldwork, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lejeune, P. (1989) On Autobiography, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Morse, J. (2000) Editorial: My own experience, Qualitative Health Research, 12(9), 115960.Reed-Danahay, D. (1997) Auto/ethnography, New York: Berg.Richardson, L. (2000) Writing: A method of inquiry. In: N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds) Handbook of Qualita-

tive Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Rose, D. (1990) Living the Ethnographic Life, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Schein, E.H. (2006) From brainwashing to organizational therapy: A conceptual and empirical journey in search of

systemic health and a general model of change dynamics. A drama in five sets, Organization Studies, 27(2),287301.

van Maanen, J. (1995) Style as theory, Organizational Science, 6, 13343.van Maanen, M. (1990) Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy,Ontario,

Canada: University of Western Ontario Press.


7/7

boyle and parry 2007 ethnography

Documents