Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the methodological practice of shadowing and its implications for ethnographic fieldwork. Furthermore, the paper challenges the label of “shadowing” and suggests a new label of “spect‐acting.”Design/methodology/approachThis paper is based in a feminist and interpretive‐qualitative approach to methods, and uses the author's experience with shadowing as a case study. The author argues that fieldwork is always intersubjective and as such, the research site emerges out of the co‐construction of the relationship between researcher and participant.FindingsThe author argues that reflexivity is a required but neglected aspect of shadowing, and that spect‐acting as a new term would require the researcher to take reflexivity more seriously, thereby opening up emancipatory possibilities in the field.Research limitations/implicationsFindings are based on a limited time span of shadowing.Originality/valueThe paper is original in that it imports “spect‐acting” from performance studies into the organizational methods lexicon. The value of the paper is that it provides reflection and discussion of one‐on‐one ethnography, which is a relatively underutilized method in research on organizations and management (but beginning to grow in popularity).
Subject
General Business, Management and Accounting,Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
Reference58 articles.
1. Adib, A. and Guerrier, Y. (2003), “The interlocking of gender with nationality, race, ethnicity and class: the narratives of women in hotel work”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 414‐32.
2. Ahl, H. (2004), The Scientific Reproduction of Gender Inequality: A Discourse Analysis of Research Texts on Women's Entrepreneurship, Liber, Malmö.
3. Althusser, L. (1984), Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Toward an Investigation), Verso, London.
4. Ashcraft, K.L. (2007), “Appreciating the ‘work’ of discourse: occupational identity and difference as organizing mechanisms in the case of commercial airline pilot”, Discourse & Communication, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9‐36.
5. Ashcraft, K.L. (2011), “Knowing work through the communication of difference: a revised agenda for difference studies”, in Mumby, D.K. (Ed.), Reframing Difference in Organizational Communication Studies: Research, Pedagogy, Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 3‐29.
Cited by
57 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献