I'm not sure if it was intentional, but I find the topic you are proposing to be paradoxical, or at least lacking clarity as to your disciplinary and scholarly goals, your methods, the applications of this knowledge and the public benefits. I suggest that you revise your outreach to scholars. The ResearchGate algorithm sent me your appeal, probably since I am a Ph.D. anthropologist and you use the word "ethnography" [but if so, you are not doing "ethnography" because you are not identifying ethnic groups/cultures as your subject of study or actual cultural phenomenon and not using ethnographic holism, but are studying "paradoxes" which are psychological behaviors], or maybe because I have an M.B.A. and your proposal mentions "organizational culture" and "digitalization" [but if so, you would be doing organizational studies or artificial intelligence studies and your methodologies would likely be that of cognitive psychology or computer logic]. Your attachment suggests that you are focusing on a methodology (ethnography) and improving it, but if you detach a methodology from a discipline and from research questions, you are just technicians working on tools [and in this case, apparently mis-defining "ethnography" as some other kind of observational method that is not based around "ethnicity"]. Best to be clear on your disciplinary basis to root your research questions and methodologies in a discipline, previous research traditions with a deep historical basis, and clear public benefit. Anthropology's study of "paradox" has largely addressed apparent paradox by suggesting that there are "deep structures" describing behaviors that appear inconsistent with either traditional "rational" logical explanations used in other disciplines and with cultural rhetoric (the "superstructure" or "ideologies"), such as behaviors or cultural suicide or control mechanisms (in so-called "democracies") or that cultures in transition voice both current and previous logics at the same time as a result of incomplete or partly open cultural change. One of the "paradoxes" of your proposal is that it is precisely this approach to study of "deep structure" and of cultural change that anthropology itself is marginalizing today (for deep structural reasons that explain the role of contemporary anthropology as detached from public benefit and real cultural change). Perhaps that is why it isn't mentioned in your outreach.

Hi David Lempert,

I appreciate your comment because it makes me reflect on the challenges and the importance of a transdisciplinary dialogue among scholars from different backgrounds.

I cannot disagree on the fact that we are not identifying ethnic groups or (exclusively) cultures as subject of study. My field of research is the one of organizational studies. This field borrowed ethnography from anthropologists and sociologists and it probably gave it a somewhat new meaning by using it for different purposes (but I do not know much about anthropology so I’d welcome your view). Ethnography, for us, represents an important tool used to study and document workers’ experiences and practices (e.g. Van Maanen, 2006; Zickar & Carter, 2010). Quoting Zilber & Zanoni (2020): “The community of scholars associated with the study of organizations constitutes a field in which disparate actors “involve themselves with one another in an effort to develop collective understanding regarding matters that are consequential for organizational and field-level activities” (Wooten & Hoffman, 2008, p. 138)”. In organizational contexts, ethnography finds many applications: it is used by strategy consultants, in market research, in human resources, in design firms, and it is taught in many business schools. Would this according to anthropologists be the work of a technicians? (Here I refer back to your line: “you are just technicians working on tools [and in this case, apparently mis-defining "ethnography" as some other kind of observational method that is not based around "ethnicity"”). I assume this to be a matter of personal opinions. For example, John Van Maanen (one of the most prominent scholars on organizational ethnography) considers ethnography for the purposes I mentioned above a discipline “in between science and art” (Van Maanen, 2015).

Your second point is also sparking interesting questions regarding the method fit. Are paradoxes psychological behaviours? Can paradoxes be observed through ethnography? I’ll take this question to the panel which is more experienced on the study of paradoxes, so thank you. I believe your point on “deep structures” also applies to our field –we cannot look inside peoples’ brain but we can observe their actions in given circumstances and in a given context. I think the method-fit boils down to the level of analysis, whether it is at the macro level, the organizational level, or the individual level. In organizational studies, paradoxes are defined as contradictory yet interrelated elements that persist over time. For example, many empirical studies show that members of social enterprises often experience tensions between financial survival and their social mission (Greco et al., 2019). A paradox approach to tensions (Smith & Lewis, 2011) essentially changed the way scholars and practitioners (can) think about conflicting demands by acknowledging the simultaneous oppositions and interdependencies of tensions. As opposed to an either/or (trade-offs) approach to tackle conflicting goals and competing demands, a paradox approach proposes both/and perspective (Lewis, 2000). There are several organizational scholars who used ethnography to tackle questions on organizational paradoxes (e.g. Jarzabkowski et al., 2014; 2018).

Lastly, I do not know how to alter the algorithm of RG rather than including new key words and through trial and error. What I posted was a short call for abstract for junior scholars with a limited number of words which did not allow me to include a full literature review on ethnography and paradox theory. This call does speak to a specific community of organizational scholars which is probably not what RG saw as a target group.

Greco, A., Long, T., & De Jong, G. (2019). The Freezing Effect of Sustainability Paradoxes and Conflicting Identities in Hybrid Organisations. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2019, No. 1, p. 14881). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.

Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management review, 25(4), 760-776.

Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of management Review, 36(2), 381-403.

Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., & Lê, J.K. 2014. Producing persuasive findings: Demystifying ethnographic textwork in strategy and organization research. Strategic Organization, 12(4): 274–87.

Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., & Lê, J. K. 2018. Studying Paradox as Process and Practice: Identifying and Following Moments of Salience and Latency. In M. Farjoun, W. K. Smith, A. Langley & C. K. Tsukas (Eds.), Dualities, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizational life, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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

Van Maanen, J. (2015, September 2). Between the lines – using ethnography to design and lead organizational culture [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAbaIb-NpW0

Zickar, M. J., & Carter, N. T. (2010). Reconnecting with the spirit of workplace ethnography: A historical review. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 304-319.

Zilber, TB, & Zanoni, P. (2020). Templates of Ethnographic Writing in Organization Studies: Beyond the Hegemony of the Detective Story. Organizational Research Methods , 1094428120944468.

Dear Angela (and colleagues),

I am enjoying this discussion and was also glad to have the chance to look a bit at your work (titles and abstracts) to get a feel for the kinds of paradoxes and frameworks that you are addressing. Allow me to add some comments here that might attract some interdisciplinary discussion and also help to focus some joint research questions. After that, probably we can continue this as a separate discussion between us.

My thought in looking at your work (paradoxes in management decisions in the area of sustainable development) is that your research question on paradoxes is set within the framework of managerial decision-making and planning, with paradoxes in values where you assume actors are starting with a free choice. Probably you are working with the types of concerns identified by Kenneth Arrow, the Nobel Prize winner in Economics who noted the paradox in planning given interactions between long and short-term economic valuations and decisions. That also seems a bit like the problem of measurement in physics, of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (and Schroedinger's cat).

The paradoxes in social science for prediction that I mentioned (outcomes that short-circuit the assumptions in the models of behavior, like "rational choice" from "economics" and "political science") works from the other direction, observing the behaviors and trying to find the right model that has predictive value of the outcomes. This is important when the existing models that have a supposed "logic" do not fit because there is actually another logic at work (that would also offend religious and ideological assumptions in our society and in institutions, like those of "rational actors" and "progress" so that we are blinded to recognizing them).

Ultimately, both approaches can come together in larger models that combine prediction (assuming determinism) with policy (assuming free choice) in trying to find how much of each are at work. While I see the focus of some of your work, the focus of your outreach is still unclear as to which of these levels you are inviting colleagues to discuss, as well as on other concerns.

Your outreach could better define the specific questions and disciplines and problem areas you are focusing on now since it looks like you are attracting everything and appears that these basic frameworks are being lost in a goal of attracting people rather than focusing on real problems and solutions. For instance, anyone looking at the list of sources in your bibliography, above, will note that it is based on just "subject" areas and categorical words ("studying paradox", "towards a theory", "ethnography") without stating any actual problem you are trying to solve, why it is important to solve it at all, whether you have any solutions and if so how they work and for whom. These are the basic obligations of scientific and applied disciplines. Otherwise you are just in the realm of philosophy and theology.

I know from you work on line that you, personally, are focusing on "sustainability" (a real public problem) and helping decisionmakers to overcome paradoxes in their values. We share that concern as you can see from some of my work (for example on the problem of the "prisoners' dilemma" of national decision-makers trying to do sustainable development planning but being forced to "grow" and buy weapons instead, in order to protect their resources, which creates a paradox of unsustainability and global collapse). I also look at it from the other angle of the deterministic framework logics that undermine free choice (like the logic of cultural suicide).

As to "ethnography", the word today has simply been redefined. We live at a time of Orwellian "Newspeak" where academic disciplines and public discourse uses words meaning their opposites in order to promote (and hide) underlying agendas. In the current era of neo-liberalism and neo-colonialism, in which "identities" are promoted but the actual cultures and environments that traditionally defined identity (the globe's 6,000 languages and the eco-systems where they developed) are being destroyed as part of an effort to urbanize, industrialize, homogenize and "integrate" everyone uniformly into global corporate culture, the only remaining "identities" are those visible or chosen in a single mass society. In avoiding having to deal with the reality of destruction of cultures/languages/environments and ethnicity, co-opted academics have worked to redefine "ethnography" to mean its opposite, by redefining "ethnic" in terms of everything from corporate and organizational identity to hobbies and choices (e.g., "vegetarianism" or "fast food" or "sexuality" or "cults" that are not ethnicities or cultures). Anthropologists have also been part of the elimination of their subject of study (through cultural genocide) so to find work, they need to claim that they still have a "methodology" that they can sell to others. You have been misled in your use of the word "ethnography" and have been drawn into an ideological redefinition that has ethical implications that probably you would want to avoid. The neutral word you want to use, to avoid the implication of "ethnicities" is "participatory observation" or "organizational study".

We all need to go back to basics in social sciences today to overcome the ideologies and blurring that is undermining disciplines, scholarships and applications. Rather than "citing" "authorities" (which is what religions do), we need to just start with what is observable, measurable, and commonly verifiable, starting with the simple building blocks like I suggest above with "participatory observation" and "organizational study", in place of words that have distorted meanings and categories that do not have explicitly clear content.

If you do want to introduce anthropological/ethnographic concepts, then you can define your research into paradoxes by looking at the differences between the cultures in which the differences are made to see what "cultural strategies" the actors use that fit into the larger strategies for achieving sustainability in their environments. While cultural differences are disappearing globally, you can still find many if you are trained to look for them (and to see the holistic, deeper structures).

Best,

David