1 / 11

The Process of Publishing Ethnographic Process Research

The Process of Publishing Ethnographic Process Research. Jaco Lok University of New South Wales Mark de Rond University of Cambridge. The Oxford-Cambridge Boat Race. 3. The beginning: What is this a theoretically interesting case of……..?.

ataylor
Download Presentation

The Process of Publishing Ethnographic Process Research

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Process of Publishing Ethnographic Process Research Jaco Lok University of New South Wales Mark de Rond University of Cambridge

  2. The Oxford-Cambridge Boat Race ....

  3. 3 The beginning: What is this a theoretically interesting case of……..? • Cambridge University Boat Club (CUBC) as an extreme case of institutional stability • 185 years old with very little change • Closed, secretive, elitist, with very strong socialization processes • Yet ethnographic data showed regular instances of divergence from institutionalized scripts throughout the season How can we explain divergence in the absence of ambiguity, logic pluralism, external shocks, or weak socialization?

  4. Categories of Endogenous Agency INSTITUTIONAL Reproductive Disruptive STRATEGIC RELATIONAL AFFECTIVE 4 Version 1: Putney to Mortlake: On the microprocesses of endogenous agency

  5. 5 Reactions to the first version: No process contribution • We all think that what you do here holds promise. Your data is rich, your grasp of the literature is solid, and your overall approach promising • To put it simply, your framework for making sense of endogenous agency in highly institutionalized environments, as it currently stands, is not clear what new brings to the relevant literature. • Currently, your account is not a sufficiently process account – in R1´s (#5a) words, “your findings are static“. You give us snapshots of the three types of agency rather than provide an account of how they jointly unfold.

  6. Practical Rationality Socialization Dissonance Mending Memory Traces Escalated Dissonance Restoration 6 Version 2: Putney to Mortlake: Maintenance processes in greedy institutions Institutional Maintenance as a Multi-Layered Process

  7. 7 Reactions to the second version: Insufficient theory development • In general, the majority of reviewers and I were pleased with several aspects of your revision. (…) Reviewer 3, however, is critical (…) He/she is of the opinion that “rich examples and tales from the field” have been lost”. • Along with R1 and R2, I do not see much of a contribution to the literature on institutional work or to routines. • With your rich data at hand, you need to generate (not merely induce) theory, by drawing on appropriate bodies of research, which will both capture the phenomenon you have described and advance our theoretical understanding of it. • You need to engage with the ethnomethodological tradition and the Chicago School studies of work, that have focused on the reproduction of institutional order.

  8. 8 Version 3: On the plasticity of institutions: Containing and restoring practice breakdowns at the CUBC Institutionalized script temporarily smooths over Containment Work Ignoring Tolerating Reinforcing when minor temporarilystretcheswhilst preservingstructuralintegrity of triggers Practice Breakdown when untenable triggers T1 T2 when major Restoration Work Exception/coopting Reversing Self-correcting Formal disciplining triggers resolves Actual practice

  9. 9 Reactions to the third version:Success! • All reviewers share the view that this version represents a significant improvement to the previous one. All of them congratulate you on the seriousness with you which you took the task of revising the paper, which shows in the outcome. I share this view. The paper is lucidly written and confidently argued. It has a clear focus, presents fascinating data, and theory development has significantly improved. Based on reviewers’ comments and my own reading of your paper, I am delighted to conditionally accept the paper for publication in the Special Issue.

  10. 10 Key takeaways from publishing ethnographic process research in a top journal 1) Find a central theoretical puzzle or ‘mystery’ in the data • Whatisthis a theoreticallyinteresting case of? 2) Be willing to re-imagine the central theoretical puzzle based on the reviews • Be prepared for a complete rewrite! 3) Find a balance betweenshowing, telling, and theorizing • VERY challenging but not impossible 4) Be as responsive to the reviewers’ comments as youcan • Carefullyexplainwhatyou have done and why in the responseletter 5) Persistence and hard work are key • Don’tgive up and beprepared to set everythingelseaside

  11. Questions

More Related