Executive Doctor in Management Weatherhead School of Management
EDMP 615
Participant Observation & Ethnographic Methods/Project II
Jeff Longhofer
Spring, 2002
Following from the first semester’s inquiry seminar and project proposal, the second inquiry course has as its major goal the continued development of knowledge and skills pertaining to ethnographic inquiry and practitioner scholarship, including preparation for publishing and disseminating research. Extending the uncompleted work of the first semester seminar concerning alternative modes of inquiry, this semester’s secondary goal is to explore social theory, particularly concerning the nature of knowledge useful for practice.
In this course, our purpose is to guide participants through a more in-depth ethnographic inquiry than was possible in the first semester. This will combine repeated field observation and associated use of interviews and key informants. Emphasis will be put on skills that could only receive preliminary development in the first semester, particularly a) the use of theory to guide analytic induction, integration with prior published work, and dissemination to scholarly communities, and b) the development of practice-oriented knowledge for dissemination to practitioner communities. To meet the first requirement of the Applied Research Project, participants will produce a written study designed to be disseminated to expert practitioner and/or scholarly audiences through publication or presentation. This paper will be due on the last day of the final residency. In order to meet University requirements for dissemination, all projects must IRB approval. This should be completed by the first residency.
Regarding the secondary goal, selected readings by social constructionists and other contemporary social theorists will be used to further explore ideas introduced during the first inquiry course. They will also be informative regarding the nature of practice and of knowledge that practitioners draw upon.
In keeping with its two purposes, the seminar has the following goals:
Overall goals
Sub-goals
Nature of the Ethnographic Research Project
The ethnography project should be characterized by the elements of good practitioner-scholarship. The project should be written in a style enabling it to be submitted at the end of the semester for presentation at a conference or publication in a journal where it can have an impact on practice. Advancing to the second year will depend on successful completion of this project, not on its submission to or acceptance by a journal. The basic criteria by which the project will be assessed are the following: The project
For this ethnography to be a worthy piece of practitioner-scholarship, it will address a problem or issue of social or organizational significance, identifying and targeting a knowledge deficiency that, when filled by the study, will lead to improved policy or practice. Accordingly, the target audience to which the project's findings will be disseminated must be clearly specified, as should be a target journal and other dissemination outlets for the project. Typically, the ethnography will speak to the type of people present in the ethnography's setting as well as others concerned with the phenomena occurring in that setting. The ethnography will be theoretically informed, drawing on literature that directly relates to the chosen setting. The ethnography will combine use of concepts with formal analysis of fieldnotes and other collected data in order to produce the study's interpretations and its knowledge-for-practice. The final form of the project will be a manuscript that can serve as a base for later submission to a journal or conference, evidencing good scholarly rigor. The style will be one that conveys scholarly rigor while being engaging to expert practitioners, providing them with understandable, insightful and relevant knowledge. The paper will be at least 25 double-spaced pages in length (no more than 35, not including reference list and notes) in order to provide rich descriptions from selected ethnographic observations and interviews.
Once you have secured IRB approval for your study, start your fieldwork. As needed, Bart Morrison will continue to advise you on the IRB process. For the second residency, you will submit a draft of an introduction for your paper. By January 31, you should circulate the draft of your introduction to the Peer Review Group. Before the end of today’s session, please identify a Peer Review Group (PRG). To this group, you will circulate and critique drafts of sections of the ethnographic project and sections of the paper as the semester progresses (see attached guidelines for peer review). In addition, you will turn in a short memo (no more than 2 pages) outlining your progress, your continued reading, your procedures to date for collecting and organizing fieldnotes and interview data, and any significant issues that have arisen and themes that seem to be developing.
In addition, it is good practice to turn in a short memo at each residency discussing your progress and/or an issue that you are working on.
Faculty Resources
In consultation with the course instructor you will identify one or more faculty to serve as advisors. Typically, these will be CWRU faculty, but faculty resources can also be sought elsewhere.
Readings and Texts
In addition to those listed below, texts and articles from the first semester’s inquiry seminar should be used as references to aid in the fieldwork, analysis, and presentation phases of the ethnography project.
SEMINAR SESSIONS
Residency 1
Thursday, January 16
Saturday, January 18
Objectives/Tasks:
Task: read the introductions to all of the ethnographic articles assigned for the class (only the introductions) and come prepared with the following, for dissemination (please make 3 copies). Do not read the introductions to the corollary theory articles (they will be marked, ‘theory’, on the top right hand corner of the title page).
note how the author(s) provide an overview of the problem. Refer specifically to rhetorical strategies, use of the first person, and anything else that will allow us to engage in a meaningful discussion of reading and writing introductions.
note how the author(s) show why the problem is worth exploring.
note how the author(s) argue that the study is apt to make a contribution to theory or practice.
note how (if) the author(s) offer a broad context and narrow the problem.
note how (if) the author(s).
Task:
Think about your study’s target audience. Attempt to identify a journal or conference that you will target for submission of your completed work. Read a number of articles from recent issues of the journal, and look at the editor’s statements regarding the type of work that the journal values. Write a memo discussing how your written ethnography should be framed and structured to fit your target audience and intended dissemination plan. Include in this memo a description of your target audience, the knowledge deficiency that you intend to address, and how the dissemination outlet selected will enable you to reach or influence that audience.
Task:
To form peer writing groups.
How to write for practitioner audiences.
To begin a structured writing journal.
Note: Next residency, you are required to come with a draft of an introduction for your project. You should have circulated your draft to the peer reviewers and their comments should be included along with this early draft (see attached comment sheet).
Readings:
Cheney, T. A. “The realities of group life.” (1991). In, Writing creative nonfiction. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press. Pp. 55-73.
Luey, B. (1995). “Journal articles.” In, Handbook for Academic Authors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 8-30.
Murray, D. (2001). The craft of revision. New York: Harcourt College Publishers. [Note: this is a book]
Rabiner, S. & A. Fortunato. (2002). “Using narrative tension.” In, Thinking like your editor. New York: W.W. Norton. Pp. 177-195.
Rhodes, T., Stimson, G.V., Fitch, C., Ball, A., & Renton, A. (1999). “Rapid assessment, injecting drug use, and public health.” Lancet 353: 65-68.
Smith, J.K. (1983). “Quantitative versus interpretive: The problem of conducting social inquiry.” In, Philosophy of evaluation: new directions for program evaluation, no. 19, edited by E. R. House. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Pp. 27-51.
Recommended Readings:
Residency 2
Saturday, February, 8th
Due Dates:
1. The draft of your introduction is due January 25. This means that you should have
mailed, emailed, or faxed a copy to the instructor and members of your
peer review group no later than 5:00 on Friday . Late submissions will not be given consideration. Also, late submissions will prevent the PRG from performing their function.
2. On February 8th, you should bring three copies of your PRG comments for each introduction, two for colleagues and one for the instructor.
Objectives/Tasks:
• Structure of Knowledge Production II
• Applying theory to research
To read and critique theory/literature
Task: You will need to prepare (again, with 3 copies) in this residency for a careful discussion of each ethnographic article. You will discover, however, that some articles do not neatly compartmentalize the theory or literature; thus, it will be your challenge to tease them out of the narrative. Be prepared to discuss (compare and contrast) each article for:
How does the author(s) narrow the literature review?
How does the author(s) move the reader along to show how the literature relates directly to the object of study.
How does the author(s) use the literature to explicate or make useful theory for their own purposes.
How does the author(s) make the transition from the literature to the statement of the problem?
Is the literature adequately critiqued?
Are both sides of an argument recognized?
Is the writer’s knowledge of the subject intensive and extensive enough
to justify the study?
Is there a coherent argument that flows from the literature review?
Does the author(s) limit their authority? (e.g., overuse the expert, quotes…).
Is the literature review convincingly used to show how “this is the exact study that needs to be done at this time?
To understand how, using rapid ethnography, theory(s) help see interpretive gaps.
Peer Review groups convene to discuss how their object of study relates to theory and the literature. We will then report back to the larger group.
To consider how social reproduction theory (e.g., Bourdieu) has been adapted for the study of information technology and organizations.
Task: Come prepared, especially, for a discussion of Schultze and Boland’s article, “Knowledge Management Technology and the Reproduction of Knowledge Work Practices.” For the exercise, you will be asked to consider how the authors have used Bourdieu to frame their argument.
Task: Submit memo describing progress toward completion of the ethnographic project.
Readings:
Jenkins, R. (1992). Practice, habitus and field (chapter 4). In, Pierre bourdieu. London: Routledge. pp. 66-102.
Jenkins, R. (1992). Symbolic violence and social reproduction (chapter 5). In, Pierre bourdieu. London: Routledge. Pp. 103-127.
Linstead, S. 1997. The social anthropology of management. British Journal of Management, 8, 85-98.
Sayer, A. (1997). Essentialism, social constructivism and beyond. Sociological Review, 45 (3). Pp. 454-487.
Schultze, U. & Boland, R. J. (2000). "Knowledge management technology and the reproduction of knowledge work practices." Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9(2-3): 193-212. (see ECS section)
Recommended Readings:
Residency 3 Reading and Writing Methods
March 1
10:15-12:15
Objectives/Tasks:
• Reading and Writing Methods I
• Structure of Knowledge Production II
• Distinguishing methods from methodology
Due Dates:
1. By 5:00pm on March 22nd, a draft of your literature review/theory section should be available to your PRG and the instructor.
2. On March 1, you should have 3 copies of comments on this section of the paper.
3. On March 1, you should present a progress memo.
Task: Critically read the method sections of all the assigned ethnographic articles. Be prepared to discuss (compare and contrast) each article for:
Source and number of participants used (e.g., might include organizations, events, informants, documents, etc.)
How and why was the particular unit of analysis selected?
Where and how were the participants recruited?
Are the instruments described? Is it necessary to describe them?
Are the readers made aware of potential problems with the method(s)?
How was the data collected?
Is it readable and interesting? Imagine!
Over what period of time was the data collected?
Are the numbers of participants in the study adequate for the particular design?
To explore the differences between methods and methodology
Task: read the Bryman article, “The debate about quantitative and qualitative research.”
Task: Submit memo describing and reflecting upon your fieldwork progress,
challenges and emerging analyses.
Readings:
Bryman, A. (1984). The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: A research question of method or epistemology. The British Journal of Sociology 35 (1): 75-92.
Carder, P. C. (2002). "The social world of assisted living." Journal of Aging Studies 16(1): 1-18. (see ECS section)
Golander, H. (1995). "Rituals of temporality: The social construction of time in a nursing ward." Journal of Aging Studies 9(2): 119-135. (see ECS section)
Hoy, D.C. (1986). Power, repression, progress: Foucault, Lukes, and the Frankfurt school. In, Foucault: a critical reader. Ed. D.C. Hoy. Oxford: Blackwell. Pp. 123-147.
Mitchell, D.M. (1994). Thematics of state and power (chapter 8). In, Critical and effective histories: foucault’s methods and historical sociology. London: Routledge. Pp. 141-173.
Prasad, P. & P. J. Caproni (1997). “Critical theory in the management classroom: Engaging power, ideology, and praxis,” Journal of Management Education, 21(3).
Scott. W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 493-511.
Recommended Readings:
Residency 4 Reading and Writing Methods and Data
Friday, March 21
Part I
8:00-10:15
Guest Instructor: Jerry Floersch, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences
Objectives/Tasks:
To understand the difference between theory (disciplinary) and practical (situated) knowledge
Review a method of comparing written and oral narratives
Situating the practitioner’s action in a social field
Analyzing the work of theory and practical knowledge in case management
Readings:
Bate, S.P. (1997). “Whatever happened to organizational anthropology?: A review of the field of organizational ethnography and anthropological studies.” Human Relations 50(9): 1147-1175.
Floersch, J. (2000). "Reading the case record: The oral and written narratives of social workers." Social Service Review 74(2): 169-192. (see ECS section)
Floersch, J. (2002). “Introduction.” (chapter 1) In, Meds,money, and manners: The case management of severe mental illness. New York: Columbia University Press. Pp. 1-16.
Macri, D. M., Tagliaventi, M. R., & Bertolotti, F. (2002). "A grounded theory for resistance to change in a small organization." Journal of Organizational Change Management 15(3): 292-310. (see ECS section)
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1994). “Grounded theory methodology: An overview.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pp. 273-285.
Residency 5 Reading and Writing Findings
Friday, April 11
Objectives/Tasks:
Critically read the findings sections of all the assigned ethnographic articles. Be prepared to discuss (compare and contrast) each article for:
Readings:
Alvesson, M. (1998). "Gender relations and identity at work: A case study of masculinities and femininities in an advertising agency." Human Relations 51(8): 969-1005. (see ECS section)
Edelman, Marc. 1996. “Devil, not-quite-white, rootless cosmopolitan: Tsuris in latin America, the Bronx, and the USSR.” In Composing ethnography: Alternative forms of qualitative writing, edited by Carolyn Ellis and Arthur P. Bochner. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press, pp. 267-300.
LeCompte, M.D. & J. J. Schensul. (1999).” Preliminary results: Identifying patterns and structures” (Chapter 7). In, Analyzing & interpreting ethnographic data, edited by M.D. LeCompte & J. J. Schensul. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. Pp. 95-112.
Lipsky, M. (1976). “Toward a theory of street-level bureaucracy.” In Theoretical perspectives on urban politics, edited by W. D. Hawley. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Pp. 196-213.
McDonald, R. (2002). "Street-level bureaucrats? Heart disease, health economics and policy in a primary care group." Health & Social Care in the Community 10(3): 129-135. (see ECS section)
Recommended Readings:
Residency 6
Reading and Writing Conclusions/Discussion
Saturday, May 3
Objectives/Tasks:
• Reading and Writing Conclusions II
• Re(writing) and disseminating for a practitioner/public audience
Reading:
Archer, M. S. (1995). Modernity’s man. In, Realist social theory: the morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 51-85.
Auerswald, C. L. & Eyre S. L. (2002). "Youth homelessness in San Francisco: A life cycle approach." Social Science & Medicine 54(10): 1497-1512. (see ECS section)
Hill, R. P. (2002). “Service provision through public-private partnerships: An ethnography of service delivery to homeless teenagers. Journal of Service Research, 4 (4): 278-289. (see ECS section)
LeCompte, M.D. & J. J. Schensul. (1999).”Fine-tuning results: Assembling components, structures, and constituents.” (Chapter 10). In, Analyzing & interpreting ethnographic data, edited by M.D. LeCompte & J. J. Schensul. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. Pp. 177-212.
LeCompte, M.D. & J. J. Schensul. (1999).” Creating interpretations.” (Chapter 11). In, Analyzing & interpreting ethnographic data, edited by M.D. LeCompte & J. J. Schensul. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. Pp. 213-226.
Recommended Reading:
Part II Writing and Disseminating for the Public Audience
1:00-3:30
Guest Instructor: Paul Kubek, Mandel School of Applied Sciences
Task:
Revise and finalize your ethnography. The style should both provide proper treatment (and referencing) of the conceptual resources that you draw upon (for the academic readers on our EDM review committee) and anticipate the eventual practitioner audience that you intend to reach. Add an epilogue that reflects on your personal skill development and learning from this project. Include an outline of significant learning concerning the overall process of producing effective research/practitioner-scholarship, in terms of thoughts to guide you in your second and third year (non-ethnographic) projects. Finally, indicate the modes and timetable for disseminating this project’s work.