On the possibility of fostering critical management studies in South Africa

Goldman, Geoff A.

doi:10.4102/ac.v16i2.415

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The comparison must reveal points of difference and similarity in how participants' social and cultural milieus influence their identities. We focussed our juxtaposition on our gendered, cultural (Goldman, 2016;Nkomo, 2018). What would such an engagement mean for scholarly identity?…”

Section: Trustworthy Duoethnographymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While qualitative research is limited in mainstream management studies in South Africa (Goldman, 2016), CMS favours this methodological approach because of its promotion of reflexive inquiry. Hibbert and Cunliffe (2015) draw a distinction between critical reflexivity and selfreflexivity where being self-reflexive questions one's own way of being, relating and acting and where being critically reflexive involves questioning assumptions of underlying social and organisational practices.…”

Section: Dialogue 1: Vulnerability Through Critical Reflectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Applying duoethnography to position researcher identity in management research

Kinnear

Ruggunan

2019

SA j. hum. resour. manag.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Orientation: South African management studies do not have a strong tradition of qualitative, critical and reflexive research. We explore how this may occur through a reflection on researcher identity.Research purpose: To critically reflect on the focussed dialogue and reflection between the authors and to demonstrate how duoethnography can challenge management scholars to become more reflective of their scholarship.Motivation for the study: To show how duoethnography can be applied in management studies scholarship as a methodological approach.Research approach/design and method: A duoethnographic approach is used. This is a collaborative form of autoethnography between two researchers. The researchers themselves become the participants of the study. The dialogue between the researchers is reflective of shared, sometimes conflictual experiences on a focussed topic or research question. We reflect on the ways our dialogues influence Lisa’s reflection of her own identity when conducting qualitative doctoral research with a feminist lens. Her identity is also influenced through some of the narrative texts of the women she interviewed during her fieldwork.Main findings: The account concludes that duoethnography challenges the positivist position that researcher identity is objective from the participants we research. We show that gender, race and epistemic assumptions are not simply quantitative variables.Practical/managerial implications: The practical implication of the study is to encourage management scholars to engage in duoethnographic collaborations as a means to facilitate critical reflection on current and past work.Contribution/value-add: The study provides an original duoethnographic account that is an uncommon reflective practice in a management research context.

show abstract

Section: Trustworthy Duoethnographymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dialogue 1: Vulnerability Through Critical Reflectionmentioning

confidence: 99%