COMING TO TERMS WITH THE FIELD: UNDERSTANDING AND DOING ORGANIZATIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY*
COMING TO TERMS WITH THE FIELD: UNDERSTANDING AND DOING ORGANIZATIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY*
复制标题
与该领域达成协议：理解和进行组织民族志*
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1991
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Michael Rosen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Michael Rosen
本文认为，在管理科学中，民族志作为一种研究组织文化的方法并没有得到充分的理解和认可。行政科学文献中很大程度上缺乏对组织文化的民族志分析，主要是因为此类工作源于对科学的社会建构主义理解。由此提供的组织知识是解释性的，否定了社会分析的主流经验主义应用中固有的主客体二分法。此外，虽然民族志分析和写作是研究文化的适当方法，但组织民族志与整个（主要是外国）社会的民族志研究有很大不同。与一般社会组织相比，正式组织既具有局部性又具有专业性。组织民族志学家为该领域带来的概念和实用工具包以及书写桌是针对这个特定的研究领域量身定制的，并在此概述。
This article argues that ethnography is inadequately understood and recognized within administration science as a method for studying organizational culture. Ethnographic analyses of organizational cultures are largely absent from the administration science literature, primarily because such work derives from a social constructionist understanding of science. The knowledge of organizations thus provided is interpretive, denying the subject—object dichotomy inherent in mainstream empiricist applications of social analysis. In addition, whereas ethnographic analysis and writing is an appropriate method for studying culture, organizational ethnography is substantially different from ethnographic studies of whole (and largely foreign) societies. Formal organizations are both partial and specialized in comparison to general societal organization. The conceptual and practical toolkit the organizational ethnographer brings to the field and the writing table is thus tailored to this particular research arena, and is outlined here.