Researcher presence in the field (“being there”) has long been a topic of scholarly discussion in qualitative inquiry. However, the representation of field presence in research accounts merits increased methodological attention as it impacts readers’ understanding of study phenomena and theoretical contributions. We maintain that the current ambiguity around representing field involvement is rooted in our scholarly community’s “involvement paradox.” On one hand, we laud field proximity as a tenet of qualitative inquiry. On the other hand, we insist on professional distance to avoid “contamination” of findings. This leaves authors in a difficult position as they attempt to weave field involvement into written accounts. We draw on existing conceptual articles and illustrative exemplars to introduce four interrelated dimensions of representation: visibility, voice, stance, and reflexivity. These are intended to structure thinking about how authors do, and can, cast field involvement in research accounts as they navigate the involvement paradox. We encourage researcher-authors to think carefully about how they attend to their field presence as they craft research accounts, in order to enhance their legitimacy, trustworthiness, and richness.
AgarM. H. (1996). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
2.
AlcadipaniR.WestwoodR.RosaA. (2015). The politics of identity in organizational ethnographic research: Ethnicity and tropicalist intrusions. Human Relations, 68(1), 79–106.
3.
AlvessonM.HardyC.HarleyB. (2008). Reflecting on reflexivity: Reflexive textual practices in organization and management theory. Journal of Management Studies, 45(3), 480–501.
4.
AntebyM. (2013). PERSPECTIVE—Relaxing the taboo on telling our own stories: Upholding professional distance and personal involvement. Organization Science, 24(4), 1277–1290.
5.
AshcraftK. L. (2007). Appreciating the “work” of discourse: Occupational identity and difference as organizing mechanisms in the case of commercial airline pilots. Discourse & Communication, 1(1), 9–36.
6.
BalogunJ.JohnsonG. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523–549.
7.
BarleyS. R. (1983). Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 393–413.
8.
BarleyS. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 78–108.
9.
BarleyS. R. (1990). Images of imaging: Notes on doing longitudinal field work. Organization Science, 1(3), 220–247.
10.
BarrosM. (2010). Emancipatory management: The contradiction between practice and discourse. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19(2), 166–184.
11.
BartunekJ. M.LouisM. R. (1996). Insider/outsider team research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
BateP. (1997). Whatever happened to organizational anthropology? A review of the field of organizational ethnography and anthropological studies. Human Relations, 50(9), 1147–1175.
13.
BateP.KhanR.PyeA. (2000). Towards a culturally sensitive approach to organization structuring: Where organization design meets organization development. Organization Science, 11(2), 197–211.
14.
BernsteinE. S. (2012). The transparency paradox a role for privacy in organizational learning and operational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(2), 181–216.
15.
BojeD. M.LuhmanJ. T.BaackD. E. (1999). Hegemonic stories and encounters between storytelling organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(4), 340–360.
16.
BrannickT.CoghlanD. (2007). In defense of being “native”: The case for insider academic research. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 59–74.
17.
BuchananD.DawsonP. (2007). Discourse and audience: Organizational change as multi-story process. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5), 669–686.
18.
BucherS.LangleyA. (2016). The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 594–613.
19.
ColeB. M. (2015). Lessons from a martial arts dojo: A prolonged process model of high-context communication. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 567–591.
20.
CunliffeA. L. (2003). Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: Questions and possibilities. Human Relations, 56(8), 983–1003.
21.
CunliffeA. L.KarunanayakeG. (2013). Working within hyphen-spaces in ethnographic research implications for research identities and practice. Organizational Research Methods, 16(3), 364–392.
22.
DenisJ.-L.DompierreG.LangleyA.RouleauL. (2011). Escalating indecision: Between reification and strategic ambiguity. Organization Science, 22(1), 225–244.
23.
de RondM.LokJ. (2016). Some things can never be unseen: The role of context in psychological injury at war. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1965–1993.
24.
EveredR.LouisM. R. (1981). Alternative perspectives in the organizational sciences: “Inquiry from the inside” and “inquiry from the outside.”Academy of Management Review, 6(3), 385–395.
25.
FineG. A. (1993). Ten lies of ethnography: Moral dilemmas of field research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22(3), 267–294.
26.
GeertzC. (1988). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
27.
GenetteG. (1980). Narrative discourse: An essay in method. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
28.
GephartR. P. (1978). Status degradation and organizational succession: An ethnomethodological approach. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 553–581.
29.
GersickC. J. (1992). Time and transition in my work on teams: Looking back on a new model of group development. In FrostP.StableinR. (Eds.), Doing exemplary research (pp. 52–64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
GioiaD. A.ChittipeddiK. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448.
31.
GioiaD. A.PriceK. N.HamiltonA. L.ThomasJ. B. (2010). Forging an identity: An insider-outsider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 1–46.
32.
Golden-BiddleK.LockeK. (1993). Appealing work: An investigation of how ethnographic texts convince. Organization Science, 4(4), 595–616.
HardyC. (1994). Underorganized interorganizational domains: The case of refugee systems. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30(3), 278–296.
35.
HardyC.PhillipsN. (1998). Strategies of engagement: Lessons from the critical examination of collaboration and conflict in an interorganizational domain. Organization Science, 9(2), 217–230.
36.
HardyC.PhillipsN.CleggS. (2001). Reflexivity in organization and management theory: A study of the production of the research subject. Human Relations, 54(5), 531–560.
37.
HatchM. J. (1996). The role of the researcher: An analysis of narrative position in organization theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 5(4), 359–374.
38.
HatchM. J.SchultzM.SkovA.-M. (2015). Organizational identity and culture in the context of managed change: Transformation in the Carlsberg Group, 2009-2013. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1(1), 56–87.
39.
HerepathA. (2014). In the loop: A realist approach to structure and agency in the practice of strategy. Organization Studies, 35(6), 857–879.
40.
JayJ. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.
41.
KisfalviV. (2006). Subjectivity and emotions as sources of insight in an ethnographic case study: A tale of the field. M@n@gement, 9(3), 117–135.
42.
KlagM.JansenK. J.LeeM. D. (2015). Contemplating workplace change: Evolving individual thought processes and emergent story lines. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(1), 36–70.
43.
KlagM.LangleyA. (2013). Approaching the conceptual leap in qualitative research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(2), 149–166.
44.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
LockeK. (2011). Field research practice in management and organization studies: Reclaiming its tradition of discovery. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 613–652.
47.
LouisM. R.BartunekJ. M. (1992). Insider/outsider research teams: Collaboration across diverse perspectives. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1(2), 101–110.
48.
LüscherL. S.LewisM. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.
49.
MarottoM.RoosJ.VictorB. (2007). Collective virtuosity in organizations: A study of peak performance in an orchestra. Journal of Management Studies, 44(3), 388–413.
50.
MichelA. A. (2007). A distributed cognition perspective on newcomers’ change processes: The management of cognitive uncertainty in two investment banks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(4), 507–557.
51.
PatriottaG.SpedaleS. (2009). Making sense through face: Identity and social interaction in a consultancy task force. Organization Studies, 30, 1227–1248.
52.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
PentlandB. T. (1992). Organizing moves in software support hot lines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 527–548.
54.
PooleM. S.Van de VenA. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.
55.
PrattM. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 456–493.
56.
ShotterJ. (2006). Understanding process from within: An argument for “withness”-thinking. Organization Studies, 27(4), 585–604.
57.
SmithA. D. (2002). From process data to publication: A personal sensemaking. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(4), 383–406.
58.
SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
59.
Van de VenA. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
60.
Van MaanenJ. (2011). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
61.
VenkateshS. A. (2013). The reflexive turn: The rise of first-person ethnography. Sociological Quarterly, 54(1), 3–8.
62.
VickersM. H. (2015). Stories, disability, and “dirty” workers: Creative writing to go beyond too few words. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(1), 82–89.
63.
WatsonT. J. (2011). Ethnography, reality, and truth: The vital need for studies of “how things work” in organizations and management. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 202–217.
64.
WeickK. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65.
WhitemanG.CooperW. H. (2011). Ecological sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 889–911.
66.
WhitemanG.CooperW. H. (2016). Decoupling rape. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2(2), 115–154.
67.
WhyteW. F. (1984). Learning from the field: A guide from experience. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
68.
WrzesniewskiA.DuttonJ. E.DebebeG. (2003). Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 93–135.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
