Joanne Jojczyk, Francois Lambotte and Christel Christophe
This article explores the interpretive process of ethnographic research within the framework of Communicative Constitution of Organization (CCO) approaches. Specifically, it…
Abstract
Purpose
This article explores the interpretive process of ethnographic research within the framework of Communicative Constitution of Organization (CCO) approaches. Specifically, it examines the role of Ricoeur’s triple mimesis as a hermeneutic tool in making sense of the extensive data gathered during a three-year ethnographic study of a cultural event, “Le Grand Huit,” part of the Mons 2015 European Capital of Culture initiative.
Design/methodology/approach
The research employs a filmed ethnographic methodology to capture the participatory processes of the “Le Grand Huit” project. The study is guided by CCO principles, focusing on communication events as the central unit of analysis. The interpretive framework of Ricoeur’s triple mimesis is utilized to navigate and textualize the complex data collected, including fieldnotes, interviews and video footage.
Findings
The study demonstrates how the process of textualizing ethnographic data through Ricoeur’s triple mimesis – prefiguration, configuration and refiguration – unpacks the interpretative process of CCO ethnographers. The narrative construction not only aids in data interpretation but also establishes the authority of the ethnographic account by making the researcher’s biases and preunderstandings explicit.
Originality/value
This article contributes to CCO scholarship by providing a methodological tool that integrates hermeneutic phenomenology into ethnographic research. It addresses the often-criticized vagueness of ethnographic methods and emphasizes the importance of reflexivity in legitimizing scientific knowledge. The application of Ricoeur’s triple mimesis offers a novel approach to understanding the constitutive role of communication in organizing processes.
Details
Keywords
The digital and material traceability of our interactions in organizations are nowadays the subject of very advanced analyses through tools known as social media analytics (SMA)…
Abstract
The digital and material traceability of our interactions in organizations are nowadays the subject of very advanced analyses through tools known as social media analytics (SMA). As thinking (infrastructure), SMA tools constitute objects to think of our digitally mediated interactions with. It produces a substratum (a new meaning) that would not exist otherwise, and enacts different types of reasoning that hypothetically influence community managers’ or members’ sensemaking of digitally mediated interactions. This chapter proposes to look behind the curtain of charts and graphs, in order to highlight the performativity of the interactions between the different machines and the traces of our digitally mediated interactions. Drawing on a detailed analysis of the fabric of SMA, this chapter highlights the explanatory power of a communication perspective on types of reasoning enacted by thinking infrastructures. First, considering the SMA tool as an editorial enunciation allows us to see it as a process implying several beings (e.g. machines, humans and logs) that are not without consequences. Second, we show that these beings have different modalities of interactions with each other, and that these modalities of interactions influence the materiality of the digital traces of past interactions. Third, throughout the process, we demonstrate the fragility and variability of their materiality. Finally, faced with the rise of a technological deterministic discourse, which tends to portray the exploitation of our digital traces as an objective way of representing the collaborative practices that make up the organization, our research aims, on the contrary, to demonstrate their relativity.
Details
Keywords
François Lambotte and Dominique Meunier
The research process is commonly viewed as a succession of linear, structured and planned practices that exclude informal and unplanned practices, engaging with the unexpected or…
Abstract
Purpose
The research process is commonly viewed as a succession of linear, structured and planned practices that exclude informal and unplanned practices, engaging with the unexpected or the uncertain. The authors’ aim is to explore this aspect of researching in connection with the narratives of researchers as they oscillate between past and present, theory and empiricism.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors first draw on the concept of “bricolage” to validate informal research practices as researchers seek to lend “thickness” to their research. To deal with the apparent “messiness” of research narratives, they apply the concepts of kairotic time and action nets. Kairotic times are key moments in research narratives when actions, under tension, interconnect to form action nets, which, in turn, generate meaning or knowledge.
Findings
The authors analyse two research episodes. The first recounts how personal experiences and contingencies influence a researcher's choice of research objects and his associated theoretical reflections. The second highlights how some concrete difficulties in choosing a field and gaining access trigger a set of actions that force a researcher to review his initial choices and to reposition himself methodologically. Discussing the concept of kairotic time, the authors show the importance of context and timing and demonstrate how stories build around a gravitational point. From there, they discuss how the concept of action nets, breaking linearity, helps to envision research practice not as a sequence, but as networks of actions that produce scientific outcomes.
Originality/value
This paper provides an operational method of using kairotic time and action nets to account for, and acknowledge, the messiness in research narratives.
Details
Keywords
Geoffrey C. Bowker, Julia Elyachar, Martin Kornberger, Andrea Mennicken, Peter Miller, Joanne Randa Nucho and Neil Pollock
Paul F. Donnelly, Yiannis Gabriel and Banu Özkazanç‐Pan
The Guest Editors’ intent with this special issue is to tell tales of the field and beyond, but all with the serious end of rendering visible the largely invisible. This paper…
Abstract
Purpose
The Guest Editors’ intent with this special issue is to tell tales of the field and beyond, but all with the serious end of rendering visible the largely invisible. This paper aims to introduce the articles forming the special issue, as well as reviewing extant work that foregrounds the hidden stories and uncertainties of doing qualitative research.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors advance their arguments through a literature review approach, reflecting on the “state of the field” with regard to doing research and offering new directions on reflexivity as an ethical consideration for conducting qualitative research.
Findings
Far from consigning the mess entailed in doing qualitative research to the margins, there is much to be learned from, and considerable value in, a more thoughtful engagement with the dilemmas we face in the field and beyond, one that shows the worth of what we are highlighting to both enrich research practice itself and contribute to improving the quality of what we produce.
Originality/value
This paper turns the spotlight onto the messiness and storywork aspects of conducting research, which are all too often hidden from view, to promote the kinds of dialogues necessary for scholars to share their fieldwork stories as research, rather than means to a publication end.