面对无名之辈——无名之辈:离职和早期职业社会化的双重民族志

IF 0.9 Q4 MANAGEMENT Journal of Organizational Ethnography Pub Date : 2021-10-22 DOI:10.1108/joe-03-2021-0012
Norma López, D. Morgan
{"title":"面对无名之辈——无名之辈:离职和早期职业社会化的双重民族志","authors":"Norma López, D. Morgan","doi":"10.1108/joe-03-2021-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe purpose of this duoethnography was to share our narratives as a left-behind early career faculty (ECF) and graduate student with minoritized identities and reflect on academic socialization processes. Specifically, when many scholars are raising alarms about the retention and success of faculty with minoritized identities, it is crucial to recognize the dimensions of socialization within the organizational context of academia.Design/methodology/approachThe authors sought an approach that would facilitate the interrogation of the overlap and divergence of the authors’ perspectives. Duoethnography research design was chosen for its focus on self-reflection as well as on the importance of the expression and consideration of those diverging perspectives. The goal was collaboration to generate a discussion that deepens a complex understanding of socialization in and professional commitment to academia.FindingsThe central insight that surfaced from the analysis of our duoethnography data is the enhanced understanding of the “nameless-faceless” dimension of academic socialization. Endeavoring to understand why faculty leave and how those who are left behind make sense of that departure led the authors to examine the unknown entities the authors are responsible to and for so they may better understand their commitment to academia.Research limitations/implicationsThe authors’ findings reveal that the nameless–faceless element is just a generalized behavior adopted in the interest of restricted and individual advantage. Diversity and equity practices are touted as a priority, but frequently, institutions act in ways that establish their own self-interests. The authors argue that we are all the nameless–faceless when they participate in academic norms that work to uphold and perpetuate traditional practices in academia.Practical implicationsThe authors’ findings point to intentional mentoring and integration of responsibility in faculty roles as potential recruitment and retention tools.Originality/valueThe authors extend the importance of collaboration and mentorship in retaining graduate students and EFC to the concept of intertwined professional commitment, or the theory that it is not simply the outcomes that are influenced by the support and cooperation between faculty with minoritized identities but that our professional commitment to academia is strengthened by that collaboration and witnessing each other's purpose and motivation to remain in academia.","PeriodicalId":44924,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Organizational Ethnography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Confronting the nameless-faceless: a duoethnography of navigating turnover and early career socialization\",\"authors\":\"Norma López, D. Morgan\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/joe-03-2021-0012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThe purpose of this duoethnography was to share our narratives as a left-behind early career faculty (ECF) and graduate student with minoritized identities and reflect on academic socialization processes. Specifically, when many scholars are raising alarms about the retention and success of faculty with minoritized identities, it is crucial to recognize the dimensions of socialization within the organizational context of academia.Design/methodology/approachThe authors sought an approach that would facilitate the interrogation of the overlap and divergence of the authors’ perspectives. Duoethnography research design was chosen for its focus on self-reflection as well as on the importance of the expression and consideration of those diverging perspectives. The goal was collaboration to generate a discussion that deepens a complex understanding of socialization in and professional commitment to academia.FindingsThe central insight that surfaced from the analysis of our duoethnography data is the enhanced understanding of the “nameless-faceless” dimension of academic socialization. Endeavoring to understand why faculty leave and how those who are left behind make sense of that departure led the authors to examine the unknown entities the authors are responsible to and for so they may better understand their commitment to academia.Research limitations/implicationsThe authors’ findings reveal that the nameless–faceless element is just a generalized behavior adopted in the interest of restricted and individual advantage. Diversity and equity practices are touted as a priority, but frequently, institutions act in ways that establish their own self-interests. The authors argue that we are all the nameless–faceless when they participate in academic norms that work to uphold and perpetuate traditional practices in academia.Practical implicationsThe authors’ findings point to intentional mentoring and integration of responsibility in faculty roles as potential recruitment and retention tools.Originality/valueThe authors extend the importance of collaboration and mentorship in retaining graduate students and EFC to the concept of intertwined professional commitment, or the theory that it is not simply the outcomes that are influenced by the support and cooperation between faculty with minoritized identities but that our professional commitment to academia is strengthened by that collaboration and witnessing each other's purpose and motivation to remain in academia.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44924,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Organizational Ethnography\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Organizational Ethnography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/joe-03-2021-0012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Organizational Ethnography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/joe-03-2021-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的本多元人种志的目的是分享我们作为被遗忘的早期职业教师(ECF)和少数民族身份的研究生的叙述,并反思学术社会化过程。具体来说,当许多学者对具有少数群体身份的教师的保留和成功提出警告时,认识到学术界组织背景下的社会化维度至关重要。设计/方法论/方法作者寻求一种方法,可以促进对作者观点的重叠和分歧的询问。选择多民族志研究设计是因为它注重自我反思,以及表达和考虑这些不同观点的重要性。我们的目标是通过合作产生一种讨论,加深对学术界社会化和专业承诺的复杂理解。从我们对多个民族志数据的分析中浮现出的核心见解是对学术社会化的“无名无面”维度的增强理解。努力理解为什么教师离开,以及那些被留下的人如何理解这种离开,导致作者审视作者所负责的未知实体,以便他们更好地理解他们对学术界的承诺。研究局限/启示:作者的研究结果表明,匿名性只是一种为了有限的和个人的利益而采取的普遍行为。多样性和公平实践被吹捧为优先事项,但机构往往以确立自身利益的方式行事。作者认为,当我们参与维护和延续学术界传统做法的学术规范时,我们都是默默无闻的。实际意义:作者的研究结果指出,有意的指导和教师角色的责任整合是潜在的招聘和保留工具。原创性/价值作者将合作和指导在留住研究生和EFC方面的重要性扩展到相互交织的专业承诺概念,或者理论,这不仅仅是结果受到具有少数民族身份的教师之间的支持和合作的影响,而是我们对学术界的专业承诺通过合作和见证彼此留在学术界的目的和动机而得到加强。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Confronting the nameless-faceless: a duoethnography of navigating turnover and early career socialization
PurposeThe purpose of this duoethnography was to share our narratives as a left-behind early career faculty (ECF) and graduate student with minoritized identities and reflect on academic socialization processes. Specifically, when many scholars are raising alarms about the retention and success of faculty with minoritized identities, it is crucial to recognize the dimensions of socialization within the organizational context of academia.Design/methodology/approachThe authors sought an approach that would facilitate the interrogation of the overlap and divergence of the authors’ perspectives. Duoethnography research design was chosen for its focus on self-reflection as well as on the importance of the expression and consideration of those diverging perspectives. The goal was collaboration to generate a discussion that deepens a complex understanding of socialization in and professional commitment to academia.FindingsThe central insight that surfaced from the analysis of our duoethnography data is the enhanced understanding of the “nameless-faceless” dimension of academic socialization. Endeavoring to understand why faculty leave and how those who are left behind make sense of that departure led the authors to examine the unknown entities the authors are responsible to and for so they may better understand their commitment to academia.Research limitations/implicationsThe authors’ findings reveal that the nameless–faceless element is just a generalized behavior adopted in the interest of restricted and individual advantage. Diversity and equity practices are touted as a priority, but frequently, institutions act in ways that establish their own self-interests. The authors argue that we are all the nameless–faceless when they participate in academic norms that work to uphold and perpetuate traditional practices in academia.Practical implicationsThe authors’ findings point to intentional mentoring and integration of responsibility in faculty roles as potential recruitment and retention tools.Originality/valueThe authors extend the importance of collaboration and mentorship in retaining graduate students and EFC to the concept of intertwined professional commitment, or the theory that it is not simply the outcomes that are influenced by the support and cooperation between faculty with minoritized identities but that our professional commitment to academia is strengthened by that collaboration and witnessing each other's purpose and motivation to remain in academia.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
37.50%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Journal of Organizational Ethnography (JOE) has been launched to provide an opportunity for scholars, from all social and management science disciplines, to publish over two issues: -high-quality articles from original ethnographic research that contribute to the current and future development of qualitative intellectual knowledge and understanding of the nature of public and private sector work, organization and management -review articles examining the history and development of the contribution of ethnography to qualitative research in social, organization and management studies -articles examining the intellectual, pedagogical and practical use-value of ethnography in organization and management research, management education and management practice, or which extend, critique or challenge past and current theoretical and empirical knowledge claims within one or more of these areas of interest -articles on ethnographically informed research relating to the concepts of organization and organizing in any other wider social and cultural contexts.
期刊最新文献
Urban gardens as inclusive green living rooms? Gardening activities in Gothenburg, across and within social divides Organizational value streams as multiteam systems: an ethnographic case study Book review: Continuities and changes in ethnographies of work Failing forward: the transformative power of writing in interdisciplinary ethnographic research A duoethnography: female academics’ experiences of gendered health issues at the intersection of middlescence, ethnic origin, social and professional status in the neoliberal academy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1