Roles and identity work in “at-home” ethnography

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to shed new light on carrying out “at-home” ethnography by building and extending the notion of roles as boundary objects, and to elucidate how evolving roles mediate professional identity work of the ethnographer. Design/methodology/approach In order to theorize about how professional identities and identity work play out in “at-home” ethnography, the study builds on the notion of roles as boundary objects constructed in interaction between knowledge domains. The study is based on two ethnographic research projects carried out by high-level career switchers – corporate executives who conducted research in their own organizations and eventually left to work in academia. Findings The paper contends that the interaction between the corporate world and academia gives rise to specific yet intertwined roles; and that the meanings attached to these roles and role transitions shape the way ethnographers work on their professional identities. Research limitations/implications These findings have implications for organizational ethnography where the researcher’s identity work should receive more attention in relation to fieldwork, headwork, and textwork. Originality/value The study builds on and extends the notion of roles as boundary objects and as triggers of identity work in the context of “at-home” ethnographic research work, and sheds light on the way researchers continuously contest and renegotiate meanings for both domains, and move from one role to another while doing so.

The social spaces of hearing apps: problems, partners and intermediaries

“…Recent traditions of qualitative research focusing on cultures and ways of doing things have emphasised the advantages of 'at home' research (e.g. Järventie-Thesleff et al, 2016;Morriss, 2016;Taylor, 2011;Ward et al, 2018). Morriss (2016), for instance, points out the ways in which insider research offers opportunities to document in a rich and detailed manner professional practices and ways of thinking that might not be articulated to strangers.…”

Social identities in the field: how fluctuating fieldworker identities shape our research

“…One recent and noteworthy contribution by Järventie-Thesleff et al (2016) describes how professional identities and identity work play out in at-home ethnography. Drawing on earlier comments about the taboo of telling one's own stories (Anteby, 2013), the authors emphasize the importance of legitimizing an open reflection about our identities in the field, particularly when conducting at-home ethnography (Järventie-Thesleff et al, 2016).…”

“…The purpose of this article is to contribute to developing our understanding and practice of fieldwork in familiar settings by expanding the literature on fieldworker identities (See e.g. Cunliffe and Karunanayake, 2013;Ergun and Erdemir 2010;Järventie-Thesleff et al, 2016;Kusow, 2003). Building on previous literature within organizational ethnography, this article introduces a reflexive framework for understanding the multiple and fluid identities that we purposefully take on, accidentally acquire, unintentionally are ascribed with and experience during ethnographic fieldwork in familiar settings.…”

“…Some work has been done on fieldworker identities, which depicts the fluid nature of these (see e.g. Järventie-Thesleff et al, 2016). However, such studies focus primarily on the identity shifts experienced by researchers when having one foot in academia and another in the context under study and less on the identities we acquire within the field and the impact of such identities on our research findings.…”

Gifts, reciprocity and ethically sound ethnographic research: a reflexive framework

“…Within organizational ethnography, scholars have focused on various ethical dilemmas related to the entanglements that arise between the researcher and the field, such as in the representation of research 4 participants (Court and Abbas, 2013), and how to write about informants who are also colleagues or perhaps friends (Beech et al, 2009;Natifu, 2016; see also Eriksson, 2013). Moreover, several studies have highlighted that loyalty towards the field context may sometimes prevent the researcher from carrying out critical research (Järventie-Thesleff et al, 2016; see also Malm, 2018), have described how prospects of future collaboration may influence data generation and research findings (Macdonald and Hellgren, 2004), and have emphasized the dilemmas that ensue when conducting research as a practitioner (Bell and Nutt, 2012). However, the process of how loyalty is created is still rarely addressed, perhaps due to the prevailing rarity of accounting for one's emotions as a researcher (cf.…”