Navigating political minefields: applying frames of reference of the employment relation to access negotiations to workplace ethnographies

IF 0.9 Q4 MANAGEMENT
Jana Stefan, Alison Hirst, Marco Guerci, Maria Laura Toraldo
{"title":"Navigating political minefields: applying frames of reference of the employment relation to access negotiations to workplace ethnographies","authors":"Jana Stefan, Alison Hirst, Marco Guerci, Maria Laura Toraldo","doi":"10.1108/joe-01-2023-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>This paper aims to help workplace ethnographers navigate and reflect on primary access negotiations by scrutinising two of the concepts mentioned in the call for papers on this special issue: workplace relations and tensions. We introduce the frames of reference (FoRs) concept as used in the field of employment relations to the ethnographic community. We propose that the implicit frames of gatekeeper and researcher influence what they deem interesting for research, thus influencing the content of access negotiations. Moreover, we propose that tensions typically emerge when gatekeepers and ethnographers do not share the same frame of the employment relationship (ER).</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>We explore the ER through Fox’s (1966, 1974) framework, taking inspiration from Budd <em>et al.</em> (2022), who applied FoRs to employer–employee relations. We adapt the framework to the relationships between workplace ethnographers and gatekeepers by theorising the characteristics of ideal types of gatekeepers and workplace ethnographers and exploring possible implications for when they meet in access negotiations. We distil lessons learnt from previous research by drawing on illustrative examples from the literature to suggest strategies for interacting with gatekeepers when tensions emerge, providing a pragmatic application of our contribution.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>Assuming that their FoR of the ER contributes to what they find to be of practical relevance/academic interest, we suggest that a (mis)match of gatekeepers’ and workplace ethnographers’ FoRs can lead to tensions between workplace ethnographers and gatekeepers, either remaining latent or becoming salient. We propose three possible strategies as to how to navigate these tensions during primary access negotiations.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>Whilst previous research has mainly focused on the ethnographer as an individual who needs to give gatekeepers a reassuring and enticing impression, we discuss how an important structural factor, an organisation’s ER setup, may influence access. We thus bring an important yet hitherto neglected aspect of organisational life into the debate on the pragmatic realities of ethnography, contributing to the discussion of how to navigate the tension between the “practical” need to convince gatekeepers and the need to fulfil one’s own standards of rigorous research and ethics.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":44924,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Organizational Ethnography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","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-01-2023-0005","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 aims to help workplace ethnographers navigate and reflect on primary access negotiations by scrutinising two of the concepts mentioned in the call for papers on this special issue: workplace relations and tensions. We introduce the frames of reference (FoRs) concept as used in the field of employment relations to the ethnographic community. We propose that the implicit frames of gatekeeper and researcher influence what they deem interesting for research, thus influencing the content of access negotiations. Moreover, we propose that tensions typically emerge when gatekeepers and ethnographers do not share the same frame of the employment relationship (ER).

Design/methodology/approach

We explore the ER through Fox’s (1966, 1974) framework, taking inspiration from Budd et al. (2022), who applied FoRs to employer–employee relations. We adapt the framework to the relationships between workplace ethnographers and gatekeepers by theorising the characteristics of ideal types of gatekeepers and workplace ethnographers and exploring possible implications for when they meet in access negotiations. We distil lessons learnt from previous research by drawing on illustrative examples from the literature to suggest strategies for interacting with gatekeepers when tensions emerge, providing a pragmatic application of our contribution.

Findings

Assuming that their FoR of the ER contributes to what they find to be of practical relevance/academic interest, we suggest that a (mis)match of gatekeepers’ and workplace ethnographers’ FoRs can lead to tensions between workplace ethnographers and gatekeepers, either remaining latent or becoming salient. We propose three possible strategies as to how to navigate these tensions during primary access negotiations.

Originality/value

Whilst previous research has mainly focused on the ethnographer as an individual who needs to give gatekeepers a reassuring and enticing impression, we discuss how an important structural factor, an organisation’s ER setup, may influence access. We thus bring an important yet hitherto neglected aspect of organisational life into the debate on the pragmatic realities of ethnography, contributing to the discussion of how to navigate the tension between the “practical” need to convince gatekeepers and the need to fulfil one’s own standards of rigorous research and ethics.

穿越政治雷区:将就业关系的参照框架应用于工作场所人种学谈判
目的 本文旨在通过仔细研究本特刊征文启事中提到的两个概念:工作场所关系和紧张局势,帮助工作场所人种志学者引导和反思主要准入谈判。我们向人种学界介绍了雇佣关系领域使用的参照系(FoRs)概念。我们认为,把关人和研究人员的隐性参照框架会影响他们认为有趣的研究内容,从而影响访问谈判的内容。此外,我们还提出,当把关人和民族志研究者对雇佣关系(ER)的框架不一致时,通常会出现紧张关系。设计/方法/途径我们通过福克斯(1966 年,1974 年)的框架来探讨雇佣关系,并从巴德等人(2022 年)那里获得灵感,他们将 FoRs 应用于雇主与雇员的关系。我们通过对理想类型的把关人和工作场所民族志学者的特征进行理论分析,并探讨他们在访问谈判中相遇时可能产生的影响,从而将该框架应用于工作场所民族志学者和把关人之间的关系。我们从以往的研究中吸取经验教训,借鉴文献中的说明性实例,提出了在出现紧张关系时与把关人互动的策略,为我们的贡献提供了务实的应用。研究结果 假设他们对研究对象的 "现实意义"(FoR)促成了他们认为具有实际意义/学术兴趣的研究对象,我们认为,把关人和工作场所民族志学者的 "现实意义"(FoR)的(错误)匹配可能导致工作场所民族志学者和把关人之间的紧张关系,这种紧张关系可能是潜在的,也可能是突出的。原创性/价值以往的研究主要关注民族志学者作为个体需要给守门人一个令人放心和有吸引力的印象,而我们则讨论了一个重要的结构性因素--组织的企业资源设置--会如何影响民族志学者的准入。因此,我们将组织生活中迄今为止被忽视的一个重要方面带入了关于民族志的实用现实的讨论中,为讨论如何驾驭说服守门人的 "实用 "需求与履行自身严格的研究和伦理标准的需求之间的矛盾做出了贡献。
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