Genealogical ethnography is ethnography that acknowledges the impossibility of representing the “real” world and that demands an uncomfortable reflexivity, while still placing a premium on observations and detailed reportage. This theoretical case, along with a coherent methodological approach and its subsequent application to project-organization research, are presented in this article. Specifically, we learn how and why (1) using naturally occurring data; (2) a reporting style; and (3) problematizing confessional tales, together, build a formidable but simple toolkit for studying the “inside” of projects. As a result, the process-thinking capacity inherent to the established research paradigm of ethnography is stimulated.
BallS.J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach.Buckingham, England: Open University Press Buckingham.
2.
BarleyS. R., & KundaG. (2001). Bringing work back in. Organization Science, 12(1), 76–95. doi: 10.2307/2640398
3.
BaumanZ. (2003). Intimations of post-modernity.London, England: Routledge.
4.
BlomquistT., HällgrenM., NilssonA., & SöderholmA. (2010). Project-as-practice: In search of project management research that matters. Project Management Journal, 41(1), 5–16. doi: 10.1002/pmj.20141
5.
BrennanM., & PopkewitzT.S. (1998). Foucault's challenge: Discourse, knowledge, and power in education.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
6.
BritzmanD.P. (1995). “The question of belief:” Writing poststructural ethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(3), 229–238. doi: 10.1080/0951839950080302
7.
BrownJ. S., & DuguidP. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and bureaucratization. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.
CicmilS., WilliamsT., ThomasJ., & HodgsonD. (2006). Rethinking project management: Researching the actuality of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 675–686.
10.
CleggS. (1989). Frameworks of power.London, England: Sage.
11.
CliffordJ. (1986). Introduction: Partial truths. In Writing cultures: The poetics and politics of ethnography (pp. 1–26). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
12.
CoffeyA. (1999). The ethnographic self: Fieldwork and the representation of identity.London, England: Sage.
13.
CzarniawskaB. (2004). On time, space, and action nets. Organization, 11(6), 773–791.
14.
Czarniawska-JoergesB. (1992). Exploring complex organizations: A cultural perspective.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
DavisG.F. (2010). Do theories of organizations progress?Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 690–709. doi: 10.1177/1094428110376995
16.
DeleuzeG. (1992). What is a dispositif? In ArmstrongT. J. (Ed.), Michel Foucault, philosopher: Essays translated from the French and German by Timothy J. Armstrong (pp. 159–168). London, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
17.
DiproseR. (1993). Nietzsche and the pathos for distance. In PattonP. (Ed.), Nietzsche, feminism and political theory (pp. 1–26). London, England: Routledge.
18.
FineG.A. (1996). Kitchens: The culture of restaurant work.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
19.
FloricelS., BonneauC., AubryM., & SergiV. (2014). Extending project management research: Insights from social theories. International Journal of Project Management, 32(7), 1091–1107. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpro-man.2014.02.008
20.
FlyvbjergB. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.
21.
FoucaultM. (1988). An Aesthetics of Existence. In KritzmanL. (Ed.), Michel Foucault, Politics Philosophy, Culture (pp. 47–53). London, England: Routledge.
22.
FoucaultM. (1991). Questions of method. In BurchellG., GordonC., & MillerP. (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 73–86). Hemel Hempstead, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
23.
FoucaultM. (1996). Foucault live: Collected interviews, 1961–1984. (LotringerS., Ed.). New York, NY: Semiotext(e).
24.
FoucaultM. (1998). Aesthetics, method, and epistemology.New York, NY: The New Press.
25.
GherardiS., & NicoliniD. (2002). Learning the trade: A culture of safety in practice. Organization, 9(2), 191–223. doi: 10.1177/1350508402009002264
26.
HarawayD. (2003). The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people and significant otherness.Chicago, IL: Prickly Paradigm Press.
27.
HibbertP., SillinceJ., DiefenbachT., & CunliffeA.L. (2014). Relationally reflexive practice: A generative approach to theory development in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 17(3), 278–298. doi: 10.1177/1094428114524829
28.
HillM. (2009). Ways of seeing: Using ethnography and Foucault's “toolkit” to view assessment practices differently. Qualitative Research, 9(3), 309–330. doi: 10.1177/1468794109105030
29.
IedemaR. (2011). Discourse studies in the 21st century: A response to Mats Alvesson and Dan Kärreman's “Decolonializing discourse.”Human Relations, 64(9), 1163–1176. doi: 10.1177/0018726711408365
30.
KundaG. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech organization.Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
31.
LancioneM. (2011). Homeless subjects and the chance of space: A more-than-human geography of homelessness in Turin.Durham University, Durham, England.
LindnerR. (2006). The reportage of urban culture: Robert Park and the Chicago School (Vol. 43). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
34.
McDonaldS. (2005). Studying actions in context: A qualitative shadowing method for organizational research. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 455–473.
35.
McWilliamE. (2003). Writing up, writing down: Authenticity & irony in educational research. In TamboukouM., & BallS. J. (Eds.), Dangerous Encounters: Genealogy & Ethnography (pp. 57–67). Switzerland: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
36.
MeadmoreD., HatcherC., & McWilliamE. (2000). Getting tense about genealogy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5), 463–476. doi: 10.1080/09518390050156413
37.
NicoliniD. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391–1418. doi: 10.1177/0170840609349875
38.
OrrJ.E. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job.London, England: Cornell University Press.
39.
OrrJ.E. (2006). Ten years of talking about machines. Organization Studies, 27(12), 1805–1820.
40.
PillowW. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196. doi: 10.1080/0951839032000060635
41.
RabinowP., & RoseN.S. (2003). Introduction. In RabinowP., & RoseN. S. (Eds.), The essential Foucault: Selections from essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984 (pp. vii–xxxv). New York, NYL: The New Press.
42.
RajchmanJ. (1985). Michel Foucault: The freedom of philosophy.New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
43.
RoethlisbergerF. J., & DicksonW.J. (1939). Management and the worker.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
SchatzkiT.R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In SchatzkiT. R., CetinaK. K., & von SavignyE. (Eds.), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (pp. 10–23). London, England: Routledge.
Schwartz-SheaP., & YanowD. (2009). Reading and writing as method: In Search of Trustworthy Texts. In YbemaS., YanowD., WelsH., & KamsteegF. H. (Eds.), Organizational Ethnography. Studying the Complexity of Everyday Life (pp. 56–82). London, England: Sage.
47.
SilvermanD. (2009). Doing qualitative research (Vol. 3). London, England: Sage.
48.
SmitsK., & van MarrewijkA. (2012). Chaperoning: Practices of collaboration in the Panama Canal Expansion Program. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(3), 440–456. doi: 10.1108/17538371211235317
49.
StrannegårdL., & FribergM. (2001). Already elsewhere—Play, identity and speed in the business world.Stockholm: Raster
50.
StraussA.L. (1978). A social worlds perspective. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 1, 119–128.
51.
TamboukouM. (1999). Writing genealogies: An exploration of Foucault's strategies for doing research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 20(2), 201–217. doi: 10.1080/0159630990200202
52.
TamboukouM., & BallS.J. (2003). Dangerous encounters.New York, NY: Peter Lang.
53.
TrinhM-H (1989). Woman, native, other.Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
54.
Van MaanenJ. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
55.
Van MaanenJ. (2006). Ethnography then and now. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 1(1), 13–21. doi: 10.1108/17465640610666615
56.
Van MaanenJ. (2011). Ethnography as work: Some rules of engagement. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 218–234. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00980.x
57.
Van MarrewijkA. (2010). European developments in business anthropology. International Journal of Business Anthropology, 1(1), 26–44.
58.
VaradharajanA. (1995). Exotic parodies/subjectivity in Adorno, Said, and Spivak.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
59.
VenkateshS. (2008). Gang leader for a day: A rogue sociologist takes to the streets.New York. NY: The Penguin Press.
60.
VeyneP. (1997). Foucault revolutionizes history. In DavidsonA. (Ed.), Foucault and his interlocutors (pp. 146–182). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
61.
VignehsaK. (2014). Stuckedness: On the organizational art of forbearance.University of Technology Sydney, Australia.
62.
VillenasS. (2000). This ethnography called my back: Writings of the exotic gaze, “Othering” Latina, and Recuperating Xicanisma. In PillowW., & PierreE. St. (Eds.), Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural research and practice in education (pp. 74–95). New York, NY: Routledge.
63.
VisweswaranK. (1994). Fictions of feminist ethnography.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
64.
WeickK.E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing: Topics in social psychology (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
65.
WoodsP. (1986). Inside schools: Ethnography in educational research.London, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
66.
YbemaS., YanowD., WelsH., & KamsteegF.H. (2009). Organizational ethnography: Studying the complexity of everyday life.London, England: Sage.
