Casting the native subject Ethnographic practice and the (re)production of difference
In the 1980s, the recognition that organizations are cultural entities requiring cultural analysis transformed the study of management and organizations.2Relying on the lens of culture meant eschewing large-scale surveys and laboratory experiments in favour of in-depth researcher immersion in local...
        Saved in:
      
    
          | Published in | Casting the Other pp. 197 - 216 | 
|---|---|
| Format | Book Chapter | 
| Language | English | 
| Published | 
            Routledge
    
       | 
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text | 
| DOI | 10.4324/9780203994221-29 | 
Cover
| Summary: | In the 1980s, the recognition that organizations are cultural entities requiring
cultural analysis transformed the study of management and organizations.2Relying on the lens of culture meant eschewing large-scale surveys and
laboratory experiments in favour of in-depth researcher immersion in local
fieldsites conducted under the label of ethnography. Ethnography’s main epistemological claim is an endogenic or ‘insider’ one – that it offers an understanding of ‘natives’ in their own cultures. Within the wider anthropological
tradition in which ethnography is rooted, the term itself denotes the practice
of writing (graphy) about cultures (ethno), typically about ‘other’ and ‘native’
cultures (Axtell 1981; Vidich and Lyman 1994). Within the Anglo-American
and French traditions, ethnography is often used to refer to the actual fieldwork that yields ‘ethnological’ insights, though both terms (ethnography and
ethnology) are sometimes used interchangeably. Often referred to as an emic
(as opposed to etic) tradition, conventional ethnography does not merely
imply intense researcher involvement in the field, but is committed to understanding and presenting the natives from an ‘inside’ point of view (Gregory
1983; Schwartzman 1993). | 
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.4324/9780203994221-29 |