Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to review and organise the autoethnography literature: to explore the obstacles of and opportunities for autoethnography in organisation research; to support PhD students and supervisors who have chosen this methodological route to more clearly define their autoethnographic positions and choices; and to propose new research directions for organisational autoethnography. Design/methodology/approach -The authors critically summarise autoethnography as a contemporary approach to organisational ethnography by looking back, looking at the present, and looking to the future. The authors briefly consider the historical and disciplinary developmentand vehement critique -of autoethnography, trace its shifting epistemological positions and introduce three emergent "possibilities" of organisation autoethnography. Findings -The authors highlight how autoethnography can tell stories otherwise silenced; exploring the mundane, ignored and distorted in current academic life, past and other work experiences, working with others through collaborative or co-produced autoethnography in exciting new organisational contexts. Originality/value -This paper is one of the first attempts to review autoethnography as a contemporary approach to organisation autoethnography.
PurposeThis paper aims to draw attention to a unique paradox concerning doing an autoethnography as a PhD. On the one hand, a student may feel a pull towards revealing a vulnerable, intimate, autoethnographic self, yet on the other hand she may be pushed away from this because the oral/viva voce examination process may deny the student anonymity. Through the telling of this tale the complexities concerning self‐disclosure and student autoethnography reveal are explored.Design/methodology/approachThe tale is autoethnographic: a fictionalised account based on real events and co‐constructed from substantial field notes, personal diaries, e‐mails, and reports.FindingsThis paper contributes to relational ethics concerned with self‐disclosure and the “I” of a reveal, and highlight the possibilities for developing Medford's notion of mindful slippage as a strategy for removing highly personal and possibly harmful elements within student autoethnography.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper provides a preliminary theoretical framework that has not been empirically tested and is situated within “introspective” autoethnographic research.Originality/valueThe paper takes an innovative approach to autoethnography, addressing ethical value systems specifically within a PhD context.
Purpose -While it is well known that leadership can play an important role in engendering effective knowledge management activity, relatively little is known about which styles of leadership are most appropriate for this task. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to theory by exploring dimensions of leadership as presented by Avolio and Bass (Transformational, Transactional and Passive-Avoidance Leadership) and the dimensions of organisational knowledge management activity as presented by Maier and Mosley through a survey of primary knowledge managers from information and communications technology (ICT) organisations in the UK. Design/methodology/approach -The paper presents the results of a quantitative survey of 111 primary knowledge managers from ICT organisations in the UK. Findings -The key finding is that when primary knowledge managers within organisations adopt the Transformational and Transactional leadership styles, there is a notable increase in knowledge management activity. Given the results, the authors argue that organisations must be cognisant of the leadership style adopted by their knowledge managers and that it is important that both the Transformational and Transactional leadership styles are mastered and can be employed by knowledge managers within organisations. Originality/value -The paper provides analysis of two well-known leadership styles and a full range of knowledge management activity, providing insights for practitioners and theorists alike.
Purpose -In this paper the authors seek to argue that doctoral supervision is one type of human resource development relationship in higher education (HE), and that this relationship may be close or distanced, and involve technical and social support. The paper aims to highlight the seldom-discussed aspects of power and emotion within doctoral supervision, with specific focus on the feedback process, suggesting that students and supervisors may not be adequately developed for their roles. Design/methdolology/approach -The authors conducted two small cumulative studies in the UK, involving a small focus group and a national survey of students and supervisors. The focus of the first study is to elucidate potentially influential variables in the supervisory relationship. The second study builds on emergent themes relating to forms of supervision (dimensions, structure and support) with specific focus on manifestations of power and emotion. Findings -The focus group findings exemplify the power and emotion that pervades doctoral research. Key survey findings relating to power within the doctoral relationship suggest that students perceived their supervisors as having less power than themselves. With respect to emotion, the findings suggest a low level of emotion management on the part of students, who are unaware of displaying or even experiencing their emotions. As the most frequent reason for meeting, students and supervisors need to see feedback as being positive for self-development, but also need to be aware of the power and emotion dimensions of this sensitive aspect of doctoral supervision. Research limitations/implications -Although both studies were small, the authors' findings do contribute to developing a more sophisticated understanding of the forms, power and emotion of doctoral supervision. However, further research is required to identify whether these issues are pertinent to UK students and supervisors alone, or whether they transcend national cultures and higher education systems. Practical implications -The research finds that supervisors appear to learn about supervision through reflecting upon how they were supervised as students. This raises important issues for HRD in higher education for staff development. It also brings into focus how both students and supervisors are developed in recognising and dealing with their emotions, identifying and controlling shifting power dynamics, giving and receiving feedback and managing their evolving relationship. Originality/value -Few studies have explored the power and emotion of doctoral supervision, yet dealing with these requires academic staff and student development.
The authors explore how a traditional U.K. business school accommodated an autoethnography for a PhD thesis and the evaluation of the quality of innovative textual form. The authors argue that scholars can view the quality of an autoethnography in terms of two dimensions: the relationship with criteriology (consensus/dissensus) and context of quality judgment (focused on completed process/embedded in practice of completing). The authors further argue that the final judgment of thesis quality is shaped by the extent of match (or mismatch) between two dimensions: the awarding higher education institution’s (HEI) relationship with quality (i.e., its research traditions) and the context of quality judgment for the thesis (how the final thesis demonstrates quality). The authors show that supervisors and examiners are crucial for reinterpreting criteria to accommodate contemporary ethnography, particularly within traditional HEIs, and may exploit bounded discretion to do so.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.