Reconnecting With the Spirit of Workplace Ethnography: A Historical Review

http://orm.sagepub.com/Methods

Organizational Research

http://orm.sagepub.com/content/13/2/304The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1094428109338070

2010 13: 304 originally published online 22 January 2010Organizational Research MethodsMichael J. Zickar and Nathan T. Carter

Reconnecting With the Spirit of Workplace Ethnography: A Historical Review

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Research Methods Division of The Academy of Management

can be found at:Organizational Research MethodsAdditional services and information for

http://orm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://orm.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://orm.sagepub.com/content/13/2/304.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 22, 2010 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Mar 18, 2010Version of Record >>

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 9, 2014orm.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 9, 2014orm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://orm.sagepub.com/

http://orm.sagepub.com/content/13/2/304

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.aom.pace.edu/rmd/

http://orm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://orm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://orm.sagepub.com/content/13/2/304.refs.html

http://orm.sagepub.com/content/13/2/304.full.pdf

http://orm.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/01/22/1094428109338070.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Reconnecting With the Spirit ofWorkplace Ethnography

A Historical Review

Michael J. ZickarNathan T. CarterBowling Green State University, Ohio

We chronicle the early history of organizational research in which ethnography was an

important methodological tool used to study workers’ experiences. Early applied psychologists

and management researchers were conversant with leading ethnographies and cited their work,

occasionally even doing ethnography themselves. Although there is currently a vibrant niche

of organizational researchers who use ethnography, the vast majority of organizational

researchers have relied less on workplace ethnographies, citing them infrequently. We outline

benefits of ethnography and explain reasons why organizational researchers should reconnect

with the spirit of ethnography, even if practical constraints keep them from conducting

ethnographical work themselves. In addition, we provide a list of recommended workplace

ethnographies that have been cited most frequently by organizational researchers.

Keywords: ethnography; history; research methods

In the early days of social science research within organizations, researchers used a vast

array of methodological techniques, including statistical and psychometric analyses,

sociometry, case studies, and intense observational ethnographies of the workplace. It is the

latter technique that is the focus of this article. With ethnographic research, investigators

studied workers by living among them, working alongside the people they were observing,

and even spending time with workers in their homes, taverns, and churches. These intensive

observational studies were useful for grounding researchers with a sense of the reality of the

workplace, instead of treating workers as abstract entities like many economists did. Over

time, however, ethnographic methods became less popular with organizational researchers

as they turned increasingly to sophisticated statistical analysis techniques and elaborate

formal research designs. We believe there is much to learn using ethnography and in under-

standing its contributions to organizational research. In this article, we review the history of

workplace ethnography, focusing on some largely neglected classics as well as providing

recommendations for organizational researchers on how to incorporate the spirit of ethno-

graphy into their research programs. First, however, we provide a brief review on ethnogra-

phy for those who are unfamiliar with this method.

Author’s Note: Please address correspondence to Mike Zickar, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State

University, Bowling Green, OH 43403; e-mail: [email protected].

Organizational

Research Methods

Volume 13 Number 2

April 2010 304-319

# 2010 SAGE Publications

10.1177/1094428109338070

http://orm.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

304

at UNIVERSITAETBIBLIOTHEK on May 9, 2014orm.sagepub.comDownloaded from


What is Ethnography?

Ethnographic research begins like most research techniques (e.g., experiments, survey-

ing) by identifying an important or interesting question that will guide the development

of the research design. With ethnography, the realities of individuals are attempted to be

measured and understood through fieldwork, an intensive and often long period of investi-

gation. For example, Rexford Hersey, whose research is discussed in detail, spent a year

living among workers of the Pennsylvania Railway System (Hersey, 1932), whereas

Germain followed nurses and doctors in an oncology unit for 12 months (Germain,

1979). The data collected typically result in some combination of autobiographical accounts

of participants, work diaries, participant observation on the part of the researcher, inter-

views with participants; additionally, personnel records such as safety records, compensa-

tion structures, official proceeding records (e.g., meeting minutes), e-mails, statistical

records, and grievance claims may also be integrated into data collection (Schwartzman,

1993; Silverman, 2001). For example, Hersey combined workplace observation with per-

sonal interviews conducted outside the workplace, physiological and psychological mea-

surements, and analysis of life history documents. The data collected during

ethnographies are then analyzed in a holistic manner. Writing of ethnographies is

approached as a literary endeavor to describe ‘‘reality’’ (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983;

Silverman, 2001) by reconfiguring the data into a sort of informative story or narrative.

Ethnographic writing has been noted to be ‘‘ . . . the most creative step of ethnographic

research’’ (Fetterman, 1989, p. 21) and is often considered to be its defining characteristic

among other modes of qualitative data interpretation.

As with most qualitative research designs, ethnographies are rooted in observation. This

distinguishes ethnography from quantitative research designs, in which direct observation

is not as important (Silverman, 2001). However, in distinguishing between other qualitative

research designs, the primary focus of ethnography is the degree of descriptiveness in the

writing; this aspect of the method has been noted as ‘‘particularly most important’’ for eth-

nography among Bryman’s (1988) listing of characteristics of qualitative research design.

In fact, the term ethnography comes from a combination of ‘‘ethno’’ (i.e. ‘‘folk’’) and

‘‘graph’’ (i.e., ‘‘writing’’; Silverman, 2001), Further, the writing done by ethnographers has

been used by some researchers as a measure of studies’ worth (see Van Maanen, 2006).

Finally, the method has been defined as ‘‘highly descriptive writing about particular groups

of people’’ (Silverman, 2001, p. 305).

An important consideration in evaluating the accuracy of such data analyses is legitimi-

zation by organizational members (Fetterman, 1989; Schwartzman, 1993). In applied set-

tings, this can be done simply throughout the process (serving as continuous feedback on

data collection) by issuing regular memoranda to organizational members, which are often

expected by clients (Fetterman, 1989). Additionally, the use of exact-wording accounts by

organization members can allow for readers of the research to evaluate the accuracy of

researchers’ conclusions and statements concerning the phenomena of interest.

In recent years, ethnographic researchers have sought more convenient data collection

strategies and rigorous analytic approaches (e.g. Handwerker, 2001). Additionally, many

ethnographers have begun the conduct of virtual ethnography. In this framework, commu-

nities who regularly utilize electronic communication are studied via these pathways

Zickar and Carter / Reconnecting With the Spirit of Workplace Ethnography 305



(e.g. Hine, 2000). These current directions being undertaken by modern ethnographers offer

even more hope for the more frequent conduct and consideration of ethnographic research

in organizations. As will be discussed in the final section of this article, these new tech-

niques may heighten the appeal of ethnography as a method to those who may otherwise

have been discouraged by the amount of time and level of participation required by tradi-

tional ethnography. In addition and more importantly, these methods may open new ave-

nues and topics to be studied via ethnography. Although this section provides just a brief

background on ethnography, interested readers are referred to Atkinson, Coffey, Delamont,

Lofland, and Lofland (2001) and Schwartzman (1993) for more detailed information.

Next, we review the history of ethnographic studies of the workplace. Our historical

review focuses on the first half of the 20th century when the field of social science research

in organizations was just being shaped (see Baritz, 1960; Koppes, 2007 for some general

reviews of this history). In addition, our survey focuses on several largely neglected figures

and researchers from that early period (e.g., Whiting Williams and Rexford Hersey), even

though we do discuss other more well-known ethnographic classics such as the Hawthorne

studies as well. Although these studies had wide currency during their time, they have been

largely ignored by modern organizational scholars. This review is not meant to be compre-

hensive but illustrative. Examples were chosen to both revive neglected classics as well as

to illustrate different approaches to ethnography. We regard these books and monographs as

‘‘neglected classics’’ because they were widely cited and highly influential at the time they

were published, but in recent years have been largely ignored.

We believe this historical review will help interest researchers and better place the role of

ethnography in the beginnings of social science research within organizations. After several

of these seminal studies are reviewed, we discuss the decline of ethnography in organiza-

tional research, examining how quantitative methods became more popular than ethnogra-

phy. The last section presents suggestions on how to incorporate ethnographic methods.

Given the practical constraints that most researchers face, we offer tips on how to incorpo-

rate the spirit of ethnography into research given that most organizational researchers will

not devote themselves to conducting traditional ethnography.

The Beginning of Organizational Ethnography: Reformists,

Muckrakers, and Voyeurs

The early part of the 20th century was marked by massive social upheaval brought about

by mass industrialization and its accompanying transition of the American population from

rural life to the relative chaos of urban existence. Both promising and troubling changes

accompanied this transition to an industrial society, including entrance of women in the

workforce, mass unemployment, rapid increases in productivity due to technological

advances, homelessness in cities, and violent labor strikes. Social reformists sought to

understand these changing work conditions so that they could improve them and thus

reduce some of society’s turmoil. Inspired by muckraking journalist Jacob Riis who

exposed the terrible living conditions of tenement housing in burgeoning New York City

(see Riis, 1890), reformers attempted to better understand the working lives of the lower

306 Organizational Research Methods



and middle classes. Many of these reformists entered the workplace incognito to better learn

about the people they wished to help (see Pittenger, 2003).

The backgrounds and motivations of the early ethnographers varied widely as did the

techniques these investigators used. Some investigators had little training in social science

methodology, motivated only by curiosity or a desire to help others. One early 20th century

anonymous female novelist, for example, entered the workplace in New York to better

understand the plight of the new class of working women so that her novels would be more

realistic (Anonymous, 1921). Others who were trained as social scientists, often as econo-

mists or sociologists, entered the workforce to better understand the hard realities of the

workplace. Charles Rumford Walker, a Yale graduate newly discharged from the US Army,

entered the steel industry outside Pittsburgh and worked in the steel mills chronicling his

experiences using the same vernacular (often in the ‘‘Anglo-Hunky’’ language that many

recent Hungarian immigrant steelworkers used) that was used in the workplace (Walker,

1922). Walker eventually moved into academia and conducted more detailed, academic

analyses of industrial life (e.g., Walker, 1950).

Frances Donovan, a schoolteacher who was an amateur sociologist, waited tables in a

variety of restaurants in Chicago and published her experiences in book form (Donovan,

1920) as well as later doing the same as a department store clerk (Donovan, 1929). Ms.

Donovan was connected with the influential ‘‘Chicago School’’ of Sociology, headquar-

tered at the University of Chicago. Faculty at the University of Chicago, such as Robert

Park and Ernest Burgess, encouraged their students to leave the ‘‘ivory tower’’ and conduct

participation observation research in the streets and factories of Chicago (see Bulmer, 1984;

Deegan, 2001 for more background about the Chicago School). Some other Chicago School

workplace ethnographies from the early part of the 20th century focused on strikes (Hiller,

1928; MacLean, 1923a), taxi-dance halls (Cressey, 1932), and factories (MacLean, 1923b).

Although some of these early ethnographers were interested in the psychology of the

people they were studying, generally this interest was secondary to more basic economic

and moral issues related to improving working conditions. There were exceptions. For

example, economist Carleton Parker, who explicitly acknowledged the influence of Freud

in his work, studied striking hops pickers and tried to understand how strikers were moti-

vated by instincts and unconscious desires (Parker, 1920). Most of these early ethnogra-

phers, however, had little more than a passing knowledge of the field of behavioral

science and certainly had little contact with applied psychologists. This was not surprising

given that applied behavioral science was only beginning to be developed during this period

(see Koppes, 2007). In the coming decades, organizational ethnographers would begin to

interact with applied psychologists and applied psychologists would begin to conduct their

own ethnographies as well.

Whiting Williams and Applied Psychology

Whiting Williams was a renaissance man who stumbled through a number of career

choices: he was a theology student, the administrative assistant to the President of Oberlin

College, the director of a social services agency in Cleveland, and an employment manager

of a steel mill in Pittsburgh (see Wren, 1987). During this last job, Williams realized that it




was impossible to manage effectively his employees without understanding their daily con-

cerns and issues. To this end, Williams entered the workforce incognito to his fellow work-

ers and spent months in steel mills. He wrote up his experiences in What’s on the Worker’s

Mind?, a book that was quite successful (Williams, 1920). He followed up with several

other books, including detailed accounts of his experiences working in Britain (Williams,

1921) and Western Europe (Williams, 1922).

His main conclusions were that many of the causes of poor morale in the workplace were

due to poor, harsh, and indifferent management. Management too often relied on foremen to

communicate the needs and goals of upper-level management, even though the foremen

were given no or too little training on how to supervise line-employees. For example,

Williams in the colloquial language he was famous for, noted ‘‘the more I see of the fore-

man the more I feel he’s a very complex proposition. It almost looks to me as though he can

never be expected to help do the job of solving the factory manger-man problem unless he’s

given an entirely new deal’’ (Williams, 1920, p. 57). In addition, there was an assumption

behind many in management that individual workers were expendable. If somebody was

overworked and their performance suffered, you could just replace that worker with some-

one else who was waiting in line for work. Williams work was instrumental in the founda-

tion of what would later be the human relations movement that promoted the idea that

treating workers correctly benefited both company and individual. The detailed and specific

levels of language and anecdotes were effective in communicating to executives and the

public the nature of problems in industry. It is hard to imagine how a survey detailing work-

ers’ frustrations with management would have had as much impact as Williams’ ethno-

graphic research.

Although Mr. Williams had no formal training in the social sciences, he was well con-

nected with the faculty at Carnegie Tech, which was the first graduate program in the new

discipline of applied psychology. Williams maintained a friendship with program director

and pioneering applied psychologist Walter Van Dyke Bingham, who keenly read all of

Williams’ writings and invited him to address the students and faculty at Carnegie Tech.

In fact, Bingham tried to hire him as a full-time professor though Williams declined because

of the low salary proposed (US$4,000 per year, which was low relative to his private indus-

try income) and a desire to stay more connected to industry (see Bingham to Williams, July

21, 1919; Williams to Bingham, July 27, 1919).1 Instead of being hired as a faculty member,

Bingham brought Williams in for 5 weeks for a guest residency. During this period, he gave

a series of five talks to evening classes composed of students and Pittsburgh executives on

the topic ‘‘The Worker and His Job’’ as well as meeting with graduate students in informal

seminars on the topic of ‘‘Human Relations in Business and Industry’’ (see letter from Bing-

ham to Williams, November 29, 1920). The visits were successful and Williams was invited

back for the next year.

Although the general reception at Carnegie Tech seemed positive, it was not universal.

Professor L. L. Thurstone, a faculty member who was greatly interested in quantitative

methods, was less positive than his colleagues concerning Williams’ lectures. He wrote

to an administrator at Carnegie Tech, ‘‘I have discovered that Professor Bingham definitely

offered Mr. Whiting Williams $500 for a series of lectures ... Under these circumstances

it will probably be best to abide by the informal contract, although in my opinion,

Mr. Williams’ lectures would hardly be worth $500 out of our budget’’ (Thurstone, 1921).




Thurstone’s lack of enthusiasm for Williams’ ethnographic studies would be a prologue of

social science’s future embrace of quantitative methodologies over qualitative methodolo-

gies. See Thurstone (1937) for his vision of psychology as a quantitative science.

Rexford Hersey’s Investigation of Workers’ Emotional Life

Rexford Hersey was an applied psychologist, trained in psychoanalysis, who as a faculty

member at the Wharton School of Finance and Industry at the University of Pennsylvania

spent a year living and working with mechanical employees of the Pennsylvania Railroad

System. Hersey worked with the railway to identify for study 12 employees who were of

average ability and then he monitored their performance on a daily basis (he studied addi-

tional employees but not in as much depth). Hersey conducted interviews with each

employee two times in the morning as well as two times in the afternoon, questioning them

about their moods and other job-related issues. In addition, he interviewed employees at

home as well as discussing their performance with supervisors. He administered psycholo-

gical and physiological tests to his participants as well as inquired into their personal lives

and even their dreams.

Although it took a period of time for Hersey to become accepted by the workmen, he

eventually became a well-accepted fixture in their daily working lives. Even though he was

not an incognito ethnographer (ala Williams), he worked hard to fit in with the work groups.

He noted, ‘‘I always tried to engage either the candidates or some other worker in conversa-

tion or else I attempted to occupy myself in some way, usually trying to help one of the men

with some task which he might be performing’’ (Hersey, 1932, p. 409). In separate chapters

in the original book, he highlighted 10 employees providing detailed information about

their work and personal lives. His research is now viewed as the first detailed research study

in emotions in the workplace, a research topic that is experiencing a resurgence 70 years

later (see Wright & Doherty, 1998). A survey or experimental research design would not

have been likely to result in the kind of impact made by Hersey’s ethnographic study. Given

that this was the initial investigation in the area, it would have been difficult to come up

with survey questions that reflected the workers’ emotional life. In addition, he was one

of the first social scientists to document the importance of how work and family can affect

each other, a concept that has finally begun to be studied formally in organizational research

as work-family conflict (see Brief & Weiss, 2002). The open-ended nature of Hersey’s eth-

nographic research allowed him to uncover research questions and problems that were not

anticipated in the original design. The importance of family life on work grew out of the

open-ended nature of the ethnography; his participants led him to that conclusion. Recent

ethnographic research has revisited this important area of the boundaries between work and

nonwork (Perlow, 1998).

Hersey continued his research on the emotional life of workers, conducting additional

in-depth observations of German railway employees. Throughout his career, he combined

in-depth observational studies with questionnaires, laboratory experiments, and physiologi-

cal measurements. In a book summarizing his research career, Hersey advised: ‘‘If the

employer or higher executive would spend even a week every other year as a worker in his

own or some friend’s plant, he would gain such insight into this problem of securing




efficient administration of justice as to benefit greatly both himself and the workers, pro-

vided he left his preconceived ideas and prejudices behind’’ (Hersey, 1955, p. 209). It is

easy to imagine that Hersey could provide similar advice to many contemporary organiza-

tional researchers and executives.

Importance of Ethnography in the Early Days

Other prominent research that relied extensively on ethnographic methods included an

investigation of employee restriction of output by Stanley Mathewson (Mathewson,

1931). The book contains a foreword written by Bingham. In addition, social scientists

labored over the series of research that came out of the Chicago-based Hawthorne Works

plant in a series of studies conducted by Harvard Business School professors Elton Mayo

and Fritz Roethlisberger along with anthropologist William Lloyd Warner and sociologist

George Homans (see Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1956). In the famous Hawthorne studies,

participant observation was used to see the effects of environmental conditions on produc-

tivity and worker cohesion among other topics. The Hawthrone Studies have become some

of the most discussed research in the history of organizational research and have been cov-

ered extensively by others (e.g., Gillespie, 1991; Landsberger, 1958; Trahair, 1984). In fact,

today the Hawthorne studies are more well-known to researchers as an example of metho-

dological confounding called the Hawthorne Effect, which describes the effects of partici-

pants modifying their behavior in the presence of observers. At the time of publication,

however, the wide dissemination of the Hawthorne studies helped establish workplace eth-

nography as an important and viable methodological tool for studying organizational

behavior.

These ethnographic studies were cited extensively by leading applied psychologists in

their textbooks and research articles. For example, Viteles’s classic textbooks, Industrial

Psychology (Viteles, 1932) and Motivation and Morale (1953) had extensive discussions

of the Mathewson study (Viteles, 1953, pp. 53-55), Williams’s body of work (Viteles

1953, pp. 65-66), and the Hawthorne studies (Viteles, 1953, pp. 196-205). A prominent

organizational researcher, Ordway Tead, in a review of one Williams book said, ‘‘No col-

legiate course in industrial psychology is given to best advantage without liberal reference

to this as well as to Mr. Williams’ earlier volume’’ (see Tead, 1922, pp. 345-346). In many

of these citations, direct quotes from workers and observations from the ethnographic

researchers were used to illustrate points; these direct quotes stand out because the authors

made a point to explain concepts using the direct voices of the people they were studying.

For example, in a chapter on motives and attitudes, Viteles (1953) presented one of

Williams’ transcribed conversations between a millwright foreman and a employee, illus-

trating how a job transfer had changed the dynamics between the employee and his cow-

orkers; this conversation was presented to show that employees had other motives

beyond financial compensation (see Viteles, 1953, pp. 65-66). Textbooks on industrial

sociology also discussed these and other ethnographies (e.g., Miller & Form, 1951). Ethno-

graphic research clearly was an important part of the growing knowledge base that com-

prised organizational research.




Obsession With Quantification, Rejection of Ethnography

Although these early ethnographic efforts were cited frequently by applied psychologists

and industrial sociologists, organizational social scientists became increasingly disinter-

ested in ethnographic methods. There were two general reasons for this trend. First,

researchers expressed significant methodological concerns about ethnographic research,

mostly focusing on the potential for observer bias (e.g., Scott, Clothier, & Spriegel,

1949; see Hammersley, 1992 and LeCompte & Goetz, 1982 for a candid discussion of the

methodological limitations of ethnography). Second, applied psychologists became inter-

ested in new statistical techniques, such as factor analysis, regression analysis, and analysis

of variance, which forced researchers to quantify the phenomena they were studying as well

as providing a sense of precision. These quantitative techniques had advantages compared

to ethnographic methods.

Regarding concern about methodological issues, organizational researchers became con-

cerned about how the personal bias of the researcher could influence what the ethnographer

perceived and reported. For example, when discussing different methods for measuring

employee morale, one textbook discussed the ‘‘listening-in’’ method conducted by Whiting

Williams and stated, ‘‘He personally possesses the required characteristics to make his

observations largely objective, something that is unusual in men who might be available for

such work ... It is difficult to secure individuals [like Williams] who possess the required

scientific approach to do this work’’ (Scott et al., 1949, p. 400).

At the same time, organizational researchers were advocating the use of many of the

newly developed statistical techniques that were being introduced into social science

research. Austin, Scherbaum, and Mahlman (2002) reviewed empirical articles in Journal

of Applied Psychology (JAP) over the years and noted that statistical techniques became

more prevalent and more sophisticated over the years. In the period of 1920–1929, 70%of the articles that used statistics relied on descriptive statistics only, whereas by 1940 that

number had dropped to 40.4% and by 1960 only 9.9% of JAP articles relied solely on

descriptive statistics. However, use of inferential statistics and relatively complicated sta-

tistics such as factor analysis and multiple regression became more prevalent over time.

As another example of the growing increase of statistics in organizational research, Harold

Burtt opened his textbook by stating ‘‘although many persons shy at statistics, they are of

such wide applicability in employment work that they cannot logically be omitted’’ (Burtt,

1942, vii).

Quantitative methods had some advantages that seemed attractive compared to ethnogra-

phies. Replicability of quantitative studies seemed easier as it was possible to administer the

same psychological instruments to a different set of participants using similarly controlled

administration settings. Ethnographic studies, given the importance of individual observa-

tion, seemed more difficult to replicate. In addition, quantitative studies, especially those

using surveys, were much easier to conduct, requiring much less personal investment of the

researcher. Finally, quantitative methods were easier to train given that those methods were

easier to codify than ethnography, for which the individual observation techniques depend

on the unique aspects and demands of each situation. Ethnography grew out of favor not

only due to concern about its limitations but also the increasing attractiveness (and avail-

ability) of alternative research techniques.




Even though organizational researchers (especially industrial-organizational psycholo-

gists) are generally more fascinated with quantitative methods, there has been growing

interest in qualitative methods in general and ethnographic research more specifically.

Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) publishes original ethnographic articles (e.g.,

Barley, 1996; Fine, 1996; Pratt, 2000) although even in ASQ qualitative studies are outnum-

bered by quantitative studies (see Van Maanen, 1998). In fact, special issues of journals as

well as methodological reviews have been published explaining the benefits of qualitative

research and urging more researchers to include such methods in their research programs

(e.g., Lee, 2001; Lee, Mitchell, & Sablynski, 1999; Van Maanen, 1979).

There are several reasons for this resurgence. First, there has been a growing awareness

that all research suffers from researcher bias. Even quantitative methods can suffer from

researcher bias through experimental expectancies and demand characteristics. In addition,

the assumptions behind logical positivism, which underlies much of quantitative research,

have been questioned by alternative paradigms such as postmoderism and postpositivism.

Typical nomothetic, quantitative research forces participants to respond to fixed items using

the language and concepts created by the researcher. Ethnographic research is more consis-

tent with these alternative paradigms that stress the importance and validity of individual

participant perspectives. Finally, there is a growing realization that typical quantitative

studies may suffer from a lack of context and cultural understanding. Ethnographic studies,

by their nature, are more likely to be sensitive to important contextual and cultural

variables.

Ways to Reconnect With Ethnography

We realize that it would be unrealistic to expect that most organizational researchers

would conduct their own traditional ethnographic studies. The reality is that organizational

researchers typically get trained on one particular methodological framework and use that

predominantly throughout their career. The time commitment of traditional ethnographic

research is intense and would require a reorganization of academic rewards and tenure pol-

icies given that ethnographic research often does not get published until 7 to 10 years after

the original fieldwork began (see Smith, 2001). In fact, although there were several excep-

tions (e.g., Hersey, 1932), very few early applied psychologists conducted ethnographic

research by themselves. The recommendations we have made are ways that organizational

researchers can reconnect to the working world without abandoning their favored methods.

In addition, these recommendations can help instructors enrich their organizational studies

courses.

Recommendation 1—Read Ethnographies

Although it may not be plausible for most organizational researchers to conduct their

own ethnographic research, we can reap many benefits by reading existing ethnographic

research in related fields. Researchers can enrich their own quantitative studies by reading

in-depth descriptions of workers conducted by ethnographers. Reading ethnographies can

provide insights that lead to new hypotheses or revisions of existing theory. In addition, they




can provide interesting anecdotes that help illustrate a concept either in the introduction

section of a journal article or in the classroom. To help provide some guidance, Table 1 pre-

sents the 10 workplace ethnographies that were most cited by articles published in some

premier IO psychology and management journals in the period of 1980 through 2007. These

classic ethnographies would be a good place for scholars to start, given that other organiza-

tional scholars have found them to be useful. Given that most of the ethnographies in Table

1 were published over 25 years ago, we suggest that readers consult Hodson (1998) who

provides more comprehensive information about the large number of workplace ethnogra-

phies; his Web site (http://www.sociology.ohio-state.edu/rdh/) maintains an updated list.2

Several recent ethnographies that may be of interest to readers focus on retirement

(Savishinsky, 2002), organization culture as expressed in a long-time British bank (Weeks,

2004), and the temporary worker industry in Silicon Valley (Smith & Neuwirth, 2008).

Recommendation 2—Incorporate Ethnographies Into the Classroom

Graduate syllabi can include portions of ethnographies. Alternatively, books that include

short interviews with workers from diverse areas can be integrated into the course. There

are many excellent sources that include oral histories, worker autobiographies, and short

observations that provide much insight into the nature of particular jobs without requiring

students to read a book-length study. Some suggestions include the classic Working (Terkel,

1974) which contains more than 100 short interviews with workers in diverse fields ranging

from steelworker, car salesman, barber, film critic, and priest. Gig, a worthy successor to

Table 1

Most Cited Ethnographies in Top Management and Industrial-Organizational

Psychology Journals, 1980 Through 2007

Rank Work

# Of

citations

1. Kanter (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation 335

2. Gouldner (1964). Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy 73

3. Blau (1963). The Dynamics of Bureaucracy: The Study of Interpersonal Relations in Two

Government Agencies

39

4. Dalton (1959). Men who Manage 38

5. Jackall (1988). Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers 35

6. Kunda (1992). Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation 33

7. Burawoy (1979). Manufacturing Consent 26

8. Kidder (1981). The Soul of a Machine 25

9. Becker, Geer, Hughes, and Strauss (1961). Boys in White: Student Culture in Medical

School

17

10. Walker and Guest (1952). The Man on the Assembly Line 13

Note: Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Bachrach, and Podsakoff (2005) and Zickar and Highhouse (2001) were consulted

for journals. Journals included Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Admin-

istrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational

Behavior, Management Science, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Organizational

Research Methods, Personnel Psychology, and Strategic Management Journal.




Working published in 2000, follows the same format of short chapters of oral histories

conducted with people holding similarly diverse jobs (Bowe, Bowe, & Streeter, 2000).

Other books, with similar chapter length backgrounds on individual workers, that might

be appropriate are listed in Table 2. By providing selections from these books, students can

understand that although constructs like job satisfaction, productivity, and worker incivility

are often thought about in terms of reliability and path coefficients, these concepts have per-

sonal meanings imbedded in the working lives of the people we are studying. Chapters from

the books presented in Table 2 would provide a nice complement to the weekly readings in a

seminar that includes research articles and reviews. In addition, sociologists and others who

conduct ethnographies can be invited to make presentations to graduate seminars and

colloquiums.

Recommendation 3—Consider New Ethnographic Methods

Traditional ethnography requires researchers have to enter an organization in person and

conduct a lengthy observational process. This can create problems in gaining access that

may deter researchers from undertaking ethnography. A host of new, online contexts have

emerged and organizational research could benefit from understanding these contexts. As

mentioned previously, these new methods of ethnography could be conducted from the con-

venience of a laptop computer. Virtual ethnography, also known as online ethnography, net-

nography, or webnography (Purli, 2007), might be an alternative that would be more

compatible to contemporary academic lifestyles. These techniques rely on virtual partici-

pant observation via interactions through online chat rooms, group blogs, social networks,

and discussion boards. Webnography is different from data mining techniques that gather

Table 2

Books of Short Chapters of Oral Histories and Case Studies

Citation Occupations Summary

Bowe, Bowe, and Streeter

(2000). Gig

Wide-ranging (e.g., waitress, porn star, auto

worker, Congressman, software engineer)

First-person accounts across a

range of jobs

Feldman and Betzold

(1990). End of the Line

Autoworkers Oral histories of workers at a

Michigan truck plant

Korth and Beegle (1988).

I Remember It Like

Today

Policeman, reporter, strikers, union leaders,

management, replacement workers

Oral histories of survivors of

famous Auto-Lite strike of

1934

Lasson (1971). The

Workers

Garbage man, maid, baker, coal miner, cabby,

bricklayer, waitress, cop, telephone operator


range of jobs

Lynd and Lynd (1973).

Rank and File

Labor organizers in a variety of occupations (e.g.,

coal-mining, auto workers, seaman, truck

driver)

Oral histories of workers

involved in progressive labor

unions

Martin, M. (1988). Hard-

Hatted Women

Women from a variety of blue collar occupations

(e.g., construction, police officer, machinist).

First-person accounts of women

in male-dominated

occupations

Terkel (1974). Working Wide-ranging (e.g., baseball player, stockbroker,

farmer, factory owner, jazz musician)


range of jobs




quantitative data through search engines and other online-robotic techniques. Web-based

ethnographic techniques rely on interaction and detailed observation through the various

online devices mentioned above. These interactions can allow researchers to gather thick

descriptive information about context and meaning that would not be possible from data-

mining techniques. Although these virtual ethnography techniques have focused largely

on marketing and product development (see Purli, 2007), several workplace-related topics

could be pursued through this new technique. For example, if you enter ‘‘unemployment

blog’’ into a web-search engine, you will find many entries in which people relate the

day-to-day ups and downs in their job search. Searching with the phrase ‘‘union blog’’

results in several blogs related to individual organization efforts as well as strikes. The Late

Show writers, for example, had their own blog related to the television writers’ strike of

2008 (http://lateshowwritersonstrike.com/, accessed November 10, 2008). Researchers

could study these online Web sites, and even interact with many of their authors through

comment sections and individual e-mails, to construct an ethnography of these workplace

experiences. Although the process of a virtual ethnography would undoubtedly require

lengthy interactions and online observations, the convenience of doing so from a laptop

computer may make such ethnographies more attractive to some researchers. In addition

to increased accessibility, the most compelling reason to conduct virtual ethnographies is

to study work-related experiences in new contexts.

Recommendation 4—Collaborate With Ethnographers

Division of labor is a standard practice within the practice of research. If it is difficult for

quantitatively-focused researchers to leave behind their methodological assumptions and

training, it may be possible for such researchers to partner with ethnographers to design

research that combines both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Similar to Hersey’s

original research on emotions in the workplace in which he combined observational tech-

niques with quantitative surveys to provide a fuller picture (Hersey, 1932), quantitative

researchers may develop psychometric instruments that could supplement and verify find-

ings identified by ethnographic researchers. Such mixed-methods research has been advo-

cated by other researchers (see Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie,

2003). A partnership between these different researchers could result in findings that com-

bine the advantages of best approaches and in which the weaknesses of each method are

complemented by the strengths of the other approach. In addition, the mixed-methods

approach encourages researchers to think behind the traditional dichotomy of describing

research as either qualitative or quantitative and to incorporate the best characteristics of

both.

Recommendation 5—Talk With the People You Are Studying

If it is not possible to directly engage in ethnography (traditional or virtual or in colla-

boration), it certainly is possible to let the spirit of ethnography influence individual

research programs. Researchers should make a point to talk with workers in the population

who they are studying before they actually conduct their research. The spirit of ethnography

is already part of the recommendations for job analysts who are recommended to observe




workers even if they are administering objective job analysis instruments; in fact, court

decisions often criticize validity studies that are not based on job analyses that include

on-site observation of worker behavior (see Harvey, 1991).

Unfortunately, with the advent of Internet-based survey data collection strategies,

researchers may become even more divorced from the people that they are studying. There

are services (e.g., The Study Response Project) now that match researchers to relevant sam-

ples for data collection purposes so that researchers can gather a relatively quick group of

respondents without even personally interacting with them. This distance between

researcher and participant has the potential to lead researchers to lose the reality of the

workplace. We encourage researchers to make especial efforts to connect with the people

they are studying, whether through formal focus groups or informal one-on-one interviews.

These person-to-person interactions might provide useful information that would be impor-

tant to communicate to readers even though that information might not fit into any partic-

ular section of a traditional empirical research article. Authors can be creative in placing

this important information in the results or discussion section. This important qualitative

information can help place the quantitative information in context and help interpretation.

Conclusions

In the beginning, organizational researchers capitalized on the rich field of workplace

ethnography, using ethnographies to inform their research and provide a sense of the reali-

ties of the workplace. Over time, organizational researchers lost interest in ethnography as

they became more interested in collecting types of data more amenable to the sophisticated

quantitative techniques that were being developed. We believe that there would be much

benefit if organizational researchers, like their predecessors, reconnected with this impor-

tant methodology. Our suggestions will help researchers channel some of the spirit of eth-

nographic research even if they cannot conduct traditional ethnographies themselves. We

realize that there may be no true substitute for the insights that researchers get from con-

ducting their own ethnographic research, but we believe that our recommendations can help

provide some limited insight to all researchers. Further and deeper consideration of the

spirit of workplace ethnography will result in organizational research that has a deeper

understanding of the worldviews participants bring to our research studies as well as better

recognition of our own personal assumptions that limit our research.

Notes

1. Correspondence cited here can be found in the Walter Van Dyke Bingham archives

2. We consulted Hodson’s list of 148 workplace ethnographies compiled as part of his ongoing Workplace

Ethnography Project (see Hodson, 2008). We then used the Social Sciences Citation Index searching for cita-

tions to these works from the beginning of the index (1980) through 2007.




References

Anonymous. (1921). Four years in the underbrush: Adventures as a working woman in New York. New York:

Scribners.

Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J. & Lofland, L. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of ethnography.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Austin, J. T., Scherbaum, C. A., & Mahlman, R. A. (2002). History of research methods in industrial and orga-

nizational psychology: Measurement, design, analysis. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research

methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 3-33). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Baritz, L. (1960). Servants of power: A history of the use of social science in American industry. Middletown,

CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Barley, S. R. (1996). Technicians in the workplace: Ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organization

studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 404-441.

Becker, H., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C., & Stauss, A. (1961). Boys in white: Student culture in medical school. Uni-

versity of Chicago Press.

Blau, P. M. (1963). The dynamics of bureaucracy: The study of interpersonal relations in two government agen-

cies. University of Chicago Press.

Bowe, J., Bowe, M., & Streeter, S. (2000). Gig: Americans talk about their jobs at the turn of the millennium.

New York: Crown.

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307.

Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Unwin Hyman.

Bulmer, M. (1984). The Chicago School of Sociology: Institutionalization, diversity, and the rise of sociological

research. University of Chicago Press.

Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent. University of Chicago Press.

Burtt, H. E. (1942). Principles of employment psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Brothers.

Cressey, P. G. (1932). The Taxi-dance hall: A sociological study in commercialized recreation and city life. Uni-

versity of Chicago Press.

Dalton, M. (1959). Men who manage. New York: Wiley.

Deegan, M. J. (2001). Chicago School of Ethnography. In P. Atkinson, S. Delamont, J. Lofland & L. Lofland

(Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 11-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Donovan, F. (1920). The woman who waits. Boston: Badger.

Donovan, F. R. (1929). The saleslady. University of Chicago Press.

Feldman, R., & Betzold, M. (1990). End of the line: Autoworkers and the American Dream. Urbana, IL: Uni-

versity of Illinois Press.

Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Ethnography: step by step. London: Sage.

Fine, G. A. (1996). Justifying work: Occupational rhetorics as resources in restaurant kitchens. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 41, 90-115.

Germain, C. (1979). The Cancer unit: An ethnography. Wakefield, MA: Nursing Resources Inc.

Gillespie, R. (1991). Manufacturing knowledge: A history of the Hawthorne experiments. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Gouldner, A. (1964). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. New York: Free Press.

Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s Wrong with Ethnography?: Methodological Explorations. London: Routledge.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: principles in practice. New York: Tavistock.

Handwerker, P. (2001). Quick ethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Harvey, R. J. (1991). Job analysis. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Orga-

nizational Psychology Vol. 2 (pp. 71-163). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hersey, R. B. (1932). Workers’ emotions in shop and home: A study of individual workers from the psycholo-

gical and physiological standpoint. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hersey, R. B. (1955). Zest for work: Industry rediscovers the individual. New York: Harpers & Brothers.

Hiller, E. T. (1928). The strike. University of Chicago Press.

Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London: Sage.




Hodson, R. (1998). Organizational ethnographies: An underutilized resource in the sociology of work. Social

Forces, 76, 1173-1208.

Hodson, R. (2008). Workplace ethnography project. Retrieved January 12, 2008, from http://www.sociology.

ohio-state.edu/rdh/Workplace-Ethnography-Project.html

Jackall, R. (1988). Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers. New York: Oxford University.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research A research paradigm whose time has

come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Kidder, T. (1981). The soul of a new machine. Boston: Little, Brown.

Koppes, L. L. (Ed.). (2007). Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawerence Erlbaum.

Korth, P. A., & Beegle, M. R. (1988). I remember like today: The Auto-Lite strike of 1934. East Lansing: Michi-

gan State University Press.

Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Philadelphia:

Temple University Press.

Landsberger, H. A. (1958). Hawthorne revisited. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Lasson, K. (1971). The workers. New York: Bantam.

LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity of ethnographic research. Review of

Educational Research, 52, 31-60.

Lee, T. (2001). On qualitative research in Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal,

44, 215-216.

Lee, T., Mitchell, T.R., & Sablynski, C.J. (1999). Qualitative research in organizational and vocational psychol-

ogy, 1979-1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 161-187.

Lynd, A., & Lynd, S. (1973). Rank and file: Personal histories by working-class organizers. Boston: Beacon

Press.

MacLean, A. M. (1923a). On picket duty. Forum, 70, 2199-2206.

MacLean, A. M. (1923b). Four months in a model factory. Century, 106, 436-444.

Martin, M. (Ed.). (1988). Hard-hatted women: Life on the job. Seattle: Seal Press.

Mathewson, S. B. (1931). Restriction of output among unorganized workers. New York: Viking Press.

Miller, D. C., & Form, W. H. (1951). Industrial sociology: An introduction to the sociology of work relations.

New York: Harper & Brothers.

Parker, C. (1920). The casual laborer and other essays. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe.

Perlow, L. A. (1998). Boundary control: The social ordering of work and family time in a high-tech corporation.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 328-357.

Pittenger, M. (2003). ‘‘What’s on the worker’s mind’’: Class passing and the study of the industrial workplace in

the 1920s. Journal of History of the Behavioral Sciences, 39, 143-161.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005). The influence of management

journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 473-488.

Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456-493.

Purli, A. (2007). The web of insights: The art and practice of webnography. International Journal of Market

Research, 49, 387-408.

Riis, J. (1890). How the other half lives. New York: Scribner.

Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1956). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Savishinsky, J. S. (2002). Breaking the watch: The Meanings of retirement in America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni-

versity Press.

Schwartzman, H. B. (1993). Ethnography in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Scott, W. D., Clothier, R. C., & Spriegel, W. R. (1949). Personnel Management: Principles, Practices, and

Point of View (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Smith, V. (2001). Ethnographies of work and the work of ethnographers. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey,

S. Delamont, J. Lofland & L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 220-233). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.




Smith, V., & Neuwirth, E. B. (2008). The Good temp. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tead, O. (1922). Review of full up and fed up. Political Science Quarterly, 37, 344-346.

Terkel, S. (1974). Working: People talk about what they do all day and how they feel about what they do. New

York: Avon Books.

Thurstone, L. L. (1921). Letter from Thurstone to Day. Walter Bingham Collection, Carnegie Mellon Univer-

sity, Pittsburgh, PA.

Thurstone, L. L. (1937). Psychology as a quantitative rational science. Science, 85, 227-232.

Trahair, R. C. S. (1984). The humanist temper: The life and work of Elton Mayo. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans-

action Books.

Van Maanen, J. (1979). The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24,

539-550.

Van Maanen, J. (1998). Different strokes: Qualitative research in the Administrative Science Quarterly from

1956 to 1996. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Qualitative studies of organizations (pp. ix-xxxii). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Van Maanen, J. (2006). Ethnography then and now. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management:

An International Journal, 1, 13-21.

Viteles, M. S. (1932). Industrial psychology. New York: Norton.

Viteles, M. S. (1953). Motivation and morale in industry. New York: Norton.

Walker, C. R. (1922). Steel: The diary of a furnace worker. Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Walker, C. R. (1950). Steeltown: An industrial case history of the conflict between progress and security. New

York: Harper and Brothers.

Walker, C. R., & Guest, R. H. (1952). The man on the assembly line. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Weeks, J. (2004). Unpopular Culture: The Ritual of Complaint in a British Bank. University of Chicago Press.

Williams, W. (1920). What’s on the worker’s mind: By one who put on overalls to find out. New York: Charles

Scribner’s Sons.

Williams, W. (1921). Full and fed up: The worker’s mind in crowded Britain. New York: Charles Scribner’s

Sons.

Williams, W. (1922). Horny hands and hampered elbows: The worker’s mind in Western Europe. New York:

Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Wren, D. A. (1987). White collar hobo: The travels of Whiting Williams. Ames, IA: Iowa State Press.

Wright, T. A., & Doherty, E. M. (1998). Organizational behavior ‘rediscovers’ the role of emotional well-being.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 481-485.

Zickar, M. J., & Highhouse, S. (2001). Measuring prestige of journals in industrial-organizational psychology.

The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 38, 29-36.




Documents

Reconnecting With the Spirit of Workplace Ethnography: A Historical Review