The Ethnography &lt;i&gt;of&lt;/i&gt; versus &lt;i&gt;for&lt;/i&gt; Question in an Anthropology of/for Business

Peluso, Daniela M.

doi:10.22439/jba.v6i1.5315

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on different engagements with “business” as researchers and consultants, the authors show how they continuously slide in and out of the seemingly binary positions of “for” and “of.” Some authors describe how their study of a particular organization as a field site led to being asked to act as consultants for the companies and businesses themselves (Malefyt, 2017; Stull, 2017). Others reflect on how doing anthropology “for” can be understood as part of the negotiation of conducting the study “of” an organization (Sedgwick, 2017) or indeed part of the ethical and reciprocal relation that an anthropologist must always strive to have to her interlocutors (Peluso, 2017). Still others show how “for” and “of” are not exact ways of describing the ethnographers' position in relation to an organization of study but suggests instead “with” or “in residence” as terms for encapsulating the constant shifts and correlations of positions (Nagel, 2017).…”

Section: The Anthropology Of and For Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making and breaking the manual – a case of tests and rapport in an interdisciplinary team

Ilkjær

Madsen

2020

JOE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis article engages the concept of tests–here understood as social tests of collaborative abilities in the interdisciplinary teamwork–to examine how they are central to an applied anthropologist's positioning and influence within an organization.Design/methodology/approachPresented as an auto-ethnographic methodological exploration, the article takes its point of departure in ethnographic material from the work by Helene Ilkjær as an Industrial Postdoc with an interdisciplinary team of engineers, scientists and designers in a Danish technology start-up company.FindingsWithin this ethnographic context, the article examines not only the case of “the manual” to unfold how the dynamics of careful development but also notorious circumvention of manuals came to serve as social tests–moments that fundamentally changed the anthropologist's position within the interdisciplinary team. Analytically, the manual serves as a prism through which it explores the slippery and negotiable nature of the anthropologist's professional position as an Industrial Postdoc–suspended between anthropology “for” and “of” the company, officially employed by the company while also engaged in academic research.Originality/valueThe article offers anthropologists a tool to visualize the different movements and placements within continua of professional positionality while working as applied researchers with(in) private sector organizations.

show abstract

Section: The Anthropology Of and For Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making and breaking the manual – a case of tests and rapport in an interdisciplinary team

Ilkjær

Madsen

2020

JOE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This literature is limited in the extent to which it engages in a discussion whether and when the researcher is constituted as an insider. In contrast, other scholars question the apparently clear distinction between being an insider and outsider to argue that the positioning of for and of businesses is fluid (Cefkin, 2017;Fisher, 2017;Peluso, 2017). In addition to the literature of insiders and outsiders, there are a number of studies by insiders, literature written by scholars who has been in the role as insider (e.g.…”

Section: The Insider-outsider Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within the field of anthropology and ethnography, there has recently been a general shift toward doing ethnography and anthropology in organizations (in opposition to what is sometimes called “real anthropology,” the study of a foreign culture, e.g. an Indian tribe, Peluso, 2017). Organizational ethnography is not new, but the amount of studies of organizations has increased over the years (Cefkin, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Organizational ethnography is not new, but the amount of studies of organizations has increased over the years (Cefkin, 2009). In addition, more and more organizational ethnographers are conducting research in organizations for the business as opposed to ethnographies of the business (Fayard et al , 2016; Jordan, 2013; Malefyt, 2017; Peluso, 2017; Sedgwick, 2017). When the researcher is doing research for the business, the researcher is often categorized as an insider because of their affiliation with the organization, as sponsored by the organization (Fayard et al , 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Insider or outsider? Exploring the fluidity of the roles through social identity theory

Bruskin

2019

JOE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the fluidity of the fieldwork roles “insider” and “outsider.” The paper aims to move the discussion of insiders from an a priori categorized status and contribute to the literary insider–outsider debate by unfolding the micro process of how the role of an insider is shaped in situ. Grounded in empirical examples, the paper illustrates how the researcher’s role is shaped through interactions with organizational members and by context. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on an ethnographic study in an IT department of a Nordic bank and draws on empirical material generated through a combination of data: shadowing, interviews, observations and documents. Excerpts from fieldnotes are included to invite the reader into “the scenes” played out in the field and are analyzed in order to illustrate the shaping of roles in situ. Findings The study finds that, independent of the researcher’s role as sponsored by the organization, the interactions with organizational members and context determine whether the researcher is assigned a role as insider or outsider, or even both within the same context. Originality/value The paper contributes with a new discussion of how the roles of insiders and outsiders are fluid by discussing the shaping of the roles in situ. By drawing on relational identity theories, the paper illustrates how interactions and context influence the researcher’s role, grounded in empirical examples. In addition, the paper discusses what the assigned roles enable and constrain for the ethnographer in that particular situation.

show abstract

“… 1 The research on which this article is based was carried out over six months between 2015 and 2017 among employees in the investment divisions of several multinational banks in New York, and is also based on nearly twenty years of past experience working as an investment banker (Peluso, 2017). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Turning a blind eye: The complicit trespassing of ‘Chinese walls’ in financial institutions in New York

Peluso

2020

Critique of Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the ways in which ‘Chinese walls’ – that is, information barriers within financial institutions – are constituted and subverted by acts of trespass within large investment banking firms in New York. While Chinese walls positively serve to prevent corruption and fraud, they simultaneously entice legal, semi-legal and illegal forms of trespassing. My analysis shows that some trespassing is based on non-verbalized and embodied exchanges of information that are not in and of themselves illegal. Referred to as playing ‘the game’, the result of these forms of trespass is that the Chinese wall becomes an ‘effect’ or fiction. At other times, trespassing can cause inconvenient suspicion, encouraging those who operate amid these walls to participate strategically in various aspects of wilful blindness. Together, these examples reveal the conceptual and material relationships between ‘seeing’ and ‘knowing’, thereby highlighting the complexity of information flows in financial institutions and demonstrating how the critical regulation of financial capitalism is sometimes weakened.

show abstract

The Ethnography <i>of</i> versus <i>for</i> Question in an Anthropology of/for Business

Abstract: This special-

Cited by 9 publications

References 10 publications

Making and breaking the manual – a case of tests and rapport in an interdisciplinary team

Making and breaking the manual – a case of tests and rapport in an interdisciplinary team

Insider or outsider? Exploring the fluidity of the roles through social identity theory

Turning a blind eye: The complicit trespassing of ‘Chinese walls’ in financial institutions in New York

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About