Search results

Writing about Norman Denzin's work, highlighting all his scientific contributions on qualitative inquiry is not possible. Therefore, I decided to write from a personal point of view, explaining how Norman has influenced my academic career from the International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, as well as, of so many people. I am going to use Bob Dylan as the backbone of the story, first because his stories delve into such profound questions of life as the contributions Norman has made for qualitative inquiry; second because Dylan is special to Norman in many ways, and Norman for me.

Like the hero of the 1946 Capra movie It's a Wonderful Life, Norman Denzin has been a builder of his local community. While much attention has been paid to his intellectual contributions on methods and in several substantive areas, possibly his greatest accomplishments have been in the area of building and fostering a robust, international, multidisciplinary qualitative research community. This chapter explores some of these contributions, focusing on Denzin's leadership in creating the Handbook of Qualitative Research, the International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, and eight different journals or book series for which he serves as editor or coeditor. Through these channels, he has fostered the work of younger scholars, of marginalized groups, and of qualitative communities throughout the world, and supported innovative directions in qualitative theory and practice.

The chapter reports the author's early reading of Norman Denzin's work in symbolic interactionism, and Denzin's impact on research training in social science in the United Kingdom. The chapter reflects on Denzin's impact on the field of educational research in particular. The chapter then reflects on working with Denzin and particularly Denzin's leadership of the International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (ICQI) and its role in energizing and organizing the international qualitative inquiry community – the creation of Denzin's “bigger tent.”

By reconstructing the meanings, contexts, interests, and topics of conversation held over the years with Kathy Charmaz, this short tribute conceptualizes the indigenization of the Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) from a position of methodological innocence. The main question is about the existence of a global methodology useful for and applicable to all cultures regardless of local epistemologies, theoretical developments, conceptual histories, and methodological legacies existing in each nation. Acknowledging the development of American pragmatism and its effects on the construction of GTM, the way in which divergent epistemological perspectives can affect the research practice conducted by using this methodological approach is explored here. The originality of Charmaz's contribution on the internationalization of GTM is explored from our conversations imbued with my vision as a Spanish-speaking thinker. Arguing about cover-science was productive in opening paths toward the recognition of a virgin field that demanded our attention. This short tribute is an invitation to continue a journey of discovery on the geopolitics of science and on the local or global application of knowledge generated through specific research methodologies. Indigenous grounded theory research can still be a point of axial tension between different options that need to be explored soon to choose the most appropriate one for today's troubled times. During the years to come, the brilliant presence of Charmaz will illuminate the necessary critical reflection on the particularities of practicing GTM in different societies and cultures other than the American one.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

This article aims to represent three ethnographers researching an organizational event within academia: the Second International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry. It explores the divergent viewpoints of their ethnographic experiences as well as reflecting upon their relationships with each other as they attempted to understand each others’ viewpoints.

This ethnographic project involved participant observation, full participation, and narrative interviews. However, as the project continued, it evolved to reflexively examining the authors’ own viewpoints and relationships challenges.

This paper contributes to understanding ethnographic research of organizational events in several ways. First, it is an exemplar of how three ethnographers examining the same organizational event view it through differing lenses. Secondly, it shows how the authors worked together through the research, struggling to understand each others’ varied political and personal lenses through dialogue.

The research examined only one organizational event, therefore the findings are specific to this site and the same results may not necessarily be found in other organizations.

This paper is unique in that three ethnographers from different generations and different political worldviews can come together for the purposes of research, examine an organizational event and learn to cooperate with and appreciate each others’ viewpoints.