Editorial

Abstract

Ten years on This is a landmark, for us. The tenth issue of the Journal of Organizational Ethnography (JOE) is now complete. Ten years on, we can look back and reflect upon the work collected in the pages of the journal over this time. We set out our ambition "to provide a natural home within the social and management sciences for organisational ethnographies" (Brannan et al., 2012, p. 5), and we would like to think that is what JOE has become. Having said in the last issue (Brannan et al., 2021) that we have not been prolific as editors, perhaps we will be forgiven for a more extended reflection. In this short editorial, we will draw out some of the themes of the past ten years before going on to introduce the collection of essays in this issue.In looking back, we might first acknowledge the on-going strength of the connection between the journal and the Annual Ethnography Symposium. Throughout, the journal has published papers, often from early career academics, that received their first airing at the symposium, such as those by O'Boyle ( 2014), Merkus et al. (2014), Vincett (2018), Stoycheva and Favero (2020) and Bird (2020). Many papers are from participants who have gone on to get their doctorates, such as those by Lake et al. (2015) and Richards (2019). Others have been early work that has since developed into books, such as the work by Garthwaite (2016) and Brooks (2018). Still other work is by more established collaborators who have supported the symposium and the journal over the years (e.g. Kirke, 2015;Kamsteeg and Wels, 2017;Weir, 2017). We might have highlighted many more and can only apologise to those not listed above.The point is not that the symposium furnishes a good number of papers. Rather, the journal is connected to a community of sorts. One that has changed over the years as researchers have come and gone, but consistently a welcoming space for like-minded folk to gather. But that means we, as editors, often know our authors. While it is perhaps for them to comment rather than us, we have sought to take a developmental approach to the editorial process. Having seen research presented at the symposium, having encouraged submission, we are almost as interested in seeing the work published as the authors. Furthermore, many of our reviewers have attended the symposium and understand what we are trying to develop and maintain. So, very much a community, a "natural home".At the same time, we might also recognise the contribution made to the journal by the special issues we have published. There is always a balance to be struck between regular "open" issues and the themed special issues. For us, they allow the journal to reach newer audiences. Whether that be because of the subject, such as public service reforms or the nonprofit and charity sectors, or because they focus on questions of methods and work in the field, they draw readers to the journal who might otherwise be unaware of it. The collection on autoethnography (volume 7, issue 3, 2018), for example, has been well read and cited. And the...