“That's not a proper ethnography”: a hybrid “propportune” ethnography to study nurses' perceptions of organisational culture in a British hospital

IF 0.9 Q4 MANAGEMENT
Sally Sambrook, Charlotte Hillier, Clair Doloriert
{"title":"“That's not a proper ethnography”: a hybrid “propportune” ethnography to study nurses' perceptions of organisational culture in a British hospital","authors":"Sally Sambrook, Charlotte Hillier, Clair Doloriert","doi":"10.1108/joe-05-2023-0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>This paper revolves around the central question: is it possible to do “proper ethnography” without complete participant observation? The authors draw upon a student's experiences of negotiating National Health Service (NHS) ethical approval requirements and access into the student's research field, a British NHS hospital and having to adapt data collection methods for the student's doctoral research. The authors examine some of the positional (insider/outsider, native gone academic), methodological (long-term/interrupted, overt/covert) and contextual challenges that threatened the student's ethnographic study.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>The paper draws on reflexive vignettes written during the student's doctorate, capturing significant moments and issues within the student's research.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The authors highlight the temporal, practical, ethical and emotional challenges faced in attempting an ethnography of nursing culture within a highly regulated research environment. Having revealed the student's experience of researching this specific culture and finding ways to overcome these challenges, the authors conclude that the contemporary ethnographer needs to be increasingly flexible, opportunistic and somewhat covert.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\n<p>The authors argue that it is possible to do “proper” and “good” ethnography without complete participant observation – it is not the method, the observation, that is the essence of ethnography, but whether the researcher achieves real understanding through thick descriptions of the culture that explain “what is really going on here”.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\n<p>The authors hope to assist doctoral students engage in “good” ethnographic research within (potentially) risk-averse host organisations, such as the NHS, whilst being located in neo-liberal performative academic organisations (Foster, 2017; McCann <em>et al</em>., 2020). The authors wish to contribute to the journal to ensure good ethnography is accessible and achievable to (particularly) doctoral researchers who have to navigate complex challenges exacerbated by pressures in both the host and home cultures. The authors wish to see doctoral researchers survive and thrive in producing good organisational ethnographies to ensure such research is published (Watson 2012), cognisant of the pressures and targets to publish in top-ranked journals (Jones <em>et al</em>. 2020).</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>Having identified key challenges, the authors demonstrate how these can be addressed to ensure ethnography remains accessible to and achievable for, doctoral researchers, particularly in healthcare organisations. The authors conclude that understanding can be attained in what they propose as a hybrid form of “propportune” ethnography that blends the aim of the essence of “proper” anthropological approaches with the “opportunism” of contemporary data collection solutions.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":44924,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Organizational Ethnography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Organizational Ethnography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/joe-05-2023-0021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

This paper revolves around the central question: is it possible to do “proper ethnography” without complete participant observation? The authors draw upon a student's experiences of negotiating National Health Service (NHS) ethical approval requirements and access into the student's research field, a British NHS hospital and having to adapt data collection methods for the student's doctoral research. The authors examine some of the positional (insider/outsider, native gone academic), methodological (long-term/interrupted, overt/covert) and contextual challenges that threatened the student's ethnographic study.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper draws on reflexive vignettes written during the student's doctorate, capturing significant moments and issues within the student's research.

Findings

The authors highlight the temporal, practical, ethical and emotional challenges faced in attempting an ethnography of nursing culture within a highly regulated research environment. Having revealed the student's experience of researching this specific culture and finding ways to overcome these challenges, the authors conclude that the contemporary ethnographer needs to be increasingly flexible, opportunistic and somewhat covert.

Research limitations/implications

The authors argue that it is possible to do “proper” and “good” ethnography without complete participant observation – it is not the method, the observation, that is the essence of ethnography, but whether the researcher achieves real understanding through thick descriptions of the culture that explain “what is really going on here”.

Practical implications

The authors hope to assist doctoral students engage in “good” ethnographic research within (potentially) risk-averse host organisations, such as the NHS, whilst being located in neo-liberal performative academic organisations (Foster, 2017; McCann et al., 2020). The authors wish to contribute to the journal to ensure good ethnography is accessible and achievable to (particularly) doctoral researchers who have to navigate complex challenges exacerbated by pressures in both the host and home cultures. The authors wish to see doctoral researchers survive and thrive in producing good organisational ethnographies to ensure such research is published (Watson 2012), cognisant of the pressures and targets to publish in top-ranked journals (Jones et al. 2020).

Originality/value

Having identified key challenges, the authors demonstrate how these can be addressed to ensure ethnography remains accessible to and achievable for, doctoral researchers, particularly in healthcare organisations. The authors conclude that understanding can be attained in what they propose as a hybrid form of “propportune” ethnography that blends the aim of the essence of “proper” anthropological approaches with the “opportunism” of contemporary data collection solutions.

"这不是一个合适的民族志":研究英国一家医院护士对组织文化看法的混合 "机会 "民族志
目的 本文围绕一个核心问题展开论述:没有完整的参与观察,是否可以进行 "适当的民族志研究"?作者借鉴了一名学生的经历,即与英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)的伦理审批要求进行谈判,进入学生的研究领域--英国国家医疗服务体系的一家医院,并为学生的博士研究调整数据收集方法。作者探讨了威胁该学生人种学研究的一些立场(内部人/外部人、本地人/学者)、方法(长期/间断、过度/隐蔽)和环境挑战。研究结果作者强调了在高度规范的研究环境中尝试对护理文化进行人种学研究时所面临的时间、实践、伦理和情感挑战。研究局限/启示作者认为,没有完整的参与者观察,也可以进行 "适当的 "和 "好的 "民族志研究--民族志研究的精髓不在于方法和观察,而在于研究者是否通过对文化的深入描述来解释 "这里到底发生了什么",从而达到真正的理解。实践意义作者希望帮助博士生在(可能)规避风险的主办机构(如英国国家医疗服务体系)内开展 "良好的 "人种学研究,同时让他们置身于新自由主义的表演性学术组织中(Foster, 2017; McCann et al、2020).作者希望能为期刊做出贡献,以确保(尤其是)博士研究人员能够获得并完成良好的人种学研究,因为他们必须应对因东道国和母国文化的压力而加剧的复杂挑战。作者希望看到博士研究人员在撰写优秀的组织民族志时能够生存和发展,以确保此类研究成果得以发表(Watson,2012 年),同时认识到在排名靠前的期刊上发表论文的压力和目标(Jones 等,2020 年)。原创性/价值在确定了主要挑战之后,作者展示了如何应对这些挑战,以确保博士研究人员,尤其是医疗机构的博士研究人员能够接触到民族志,并且能够完成民族志的撰写。作者总结道,可以通过他们提出的 "机会 "民族志混合形式来理解民族志,这种混合形式将 "适当 "人类学方法的本质目标与当代数据收集解决方案的 "机会主义 "融合在一起。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
37.50%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Journal of Organizational Ethnography (JOE) has been launched to provide an opportunity for scholars, from all social and management science disciplines, to publish over two issues: -high-quality articles from original ethnographic research that contribute to the current and future development of qualitative intellectual knowledge and understanding of the nature of public and private sector work, organization and management -review articles examining the history and development of the contribution of ethnography to qualitative research in social, organization and management studies -articles examining the intellectual, pedagogical and practical use-value of ethnography in organization and management research, management education and management practice, or which extend, critique or challenge past and current theoretical and empirical knowledge claims within one or more of these areas of interest -articles on ethnographically informed research relating to the concepts of organization and organizing in any other wider social and cultural contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信