New communities of inquiry in multinational research Politics, resistance and perspective

Abstract

We are grateful to the editor of Ethnography for offering us the chance to respond to comments made on our article 'At the Sharp end of new organizational ideologies: Ethnography and the study of multinationals'. It is a rare opportunity to be able to benefit from such in-depth discussion and analysis, and we are pleased to take on board the reviewers' comments, rethink some of our ideas and respond.Judging by the range of material alluded to in the reviewers' responses, the topic of ethnography and anthropological methods in international business research is clearly a widely discussed subject, considerably wider, in fact, than we had originally believed. In this short article, we will reply to each of the reviewers in turn: we will reflect on their points about the turn to ethnography in studies of multinationals and provide more clarity and explanation in response to criticisms of our article's shortcomings. In doing so we build in particular on the insights provided in Mihaela Kelemen's response regarding the concept of a 'community of inquiry', and further defend our original claims about the need for polyphony in organizational research in order to counter the deadening rhythms of mainstream, US-centric views on the make-up and behaviour of large firms that is still so dominant in teaching and research.

Responsible Scholarship After Leaving the Veranda: Normative Issues Faced by Field Researchers-and Armchair Scientists1

“…28 28 For a discussion of recent ethnographic research in multinational corporations see the exchange in the journal Ethnography between John Hassard, Leo McCann, and Jonathan Morris (Hassard, McCann, and Morris 2007; McCann, Hassar, and Morris 2007) and their critics (Jack 2007; Kelemen 2007; Peltonen 2007). For some practical tips as to how to defend commissioned ethnographic research in corporations against standard criticism see Jordan and Dalal 2006. …”