Beyond methodology: unveiling multisited entrepreneurship

Abstract

PurposeMultisited ethnography has primarily been portrayed as a challenge for the following field-worker, with the researcher taking the central role and neglecting research participants also experiencing a multisited nature of their work. The authors argue that literature on multisited ethnography merely discusses multisitedness as a methodological theme. In correspondence, the authors propose to think of multisitedness not just as a methodological theme but also as an empirical theme.Design/methodology/approach The authors contend etic and emic perspectives to address multisitedness empirically, which enables researchers to compare and contrast the multisited topic of inquiry in academic “outsider” terms with the etic analysis and considering the perspective of the research participants' multisited experiences using the emic perspective. To show the fruitfulness of discussing multisitedness using the complementary etic and emic analysis, the authors present the example of Mennonite entrepreneurial activities in Belize, a heterogeneous group of migrants that established themselves as successful traders and entrepreneurs.Findings Through an etic multisited ethnographic perspective, the authors compare and contrast four communities of Mennonites in terms of their entrepreneurial activities, technology and energy use. Through an emic perspective, the authors demonstrate how Mennonites, while preferring an in-group focus, navigate their multisited entrepreneurial activities, which require interaction with the outside world.Originality/value The authors highlight the value of combining etic–emic reflections to acknowledge and include the multisited nature of many social phenomena as experienced by the research participants.

Guest editorial: New directions in workplace ethnography

“…In their article “Beyond methodology: unveiling multisited entrepreneurship,” Becker and Roessingh (2024) demonstrate the multi-sited nature of social phenomena as experienced by researchers as well as research participants. The article draws on longitudinal ethnographic fieldwork among the Mennonites in Belize, a diverse group of migrants engaged in rural entrepreneurship.…”

“…The increasing relevance of ethnographers’ engagement with the field indicates a shift away from the “ivory tower” of higher education institutions towards occupying physical (e.g. Becker and Roessingh, 2024 in this issue) and virtual (Trifan et al ., 2024) workplaces and spaces, and actively engaging with organizations and actors for purposes of change- and impact-making (elements of which are in Nooij et al , 2024, Stefan et al , 2024; Zhang, 2024). The renowned ability of ethnographers to immerse themselves in the field enables them not only to make shrewd observations as a “fly on a wall” and gain a deeper understanding of the localities, communities and people under scrutiny but also to address social and political issues, to intervene in the everyday, and to facilitate participatory approaches to social change (e.g.…”

“…(2024) to help create an inclusive and collaborative virtual space for workers. This shift also implies closing the proximal gap between the researcher and the researched, be it via at-home ethnography (Nooij et al ., 2024), autoethnography (Orel, Zhang in this issue) or multi-sited ethnography (Becker and Roessingh, 2024 in this issue).The fourth theme concerns navigating the multi-sitedness of the workplac e as ethnographers increasingly move beyond a traditional focus on singular organizations, sites or localities (Marcus, 2013) towards flexible and dynamic approaches that account for interprofessional, interdisciplinary and interorganizational relations and practices that cross, transcend and renegotiate workplace boundaries (Van Duijn, 2020). While multi-sited workplace ethnography is not new, researchers do increasingly utilize novel concepts and approaches to capture social phenomena, trace networks and follow the movements of people, activities and objects across various workplace sites and contexts.…”

“…While multi-sited workplace ethnography is not new, researchers do increasingly utilize novel concepts and approaches to capture social phenomena, trace networks and follow the movements of people, activities and objects across various workplace sites and contexts. In this issue, take Fehsenfeld et al ’s (2024) boundary work lens applied to study interprofessional collaboration and coordination during the implementation of two health care programs at the field level or Becker and Roessingh’s (2024) combined emic-etic perspective to study the multi-sited entrepreneurial activities of four Mennonite communities. At the same time, gaining access to these sites is never a given but must be negotiated as a political process, as Stefan et al (2024) show in this issue.…”

“…(2024) to help create an inclusive and collaborative virtual space for workers. This shift also implies closing the proximal gap between the researcher and the researched, be it via at-home ethnography (Nooij et al ., 2024), autoethnography (Orel, Zhang in this issue) or multi-sited ethnography (Becker and Roessingh, 2024 in this issue).…”