Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 366

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

COMING TO TERMS WITH THE FIELD: UNDERSTANDING AND DOING ORGANIZATIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY*

Rosen, Michael·1991·Journal of Management Studies

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1991.tb00268.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 366

Metadata

Authors
Rosen, M.
Venue
Journal of Management Studies
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1991-01
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
1-24
ISSN
  • 0022-2380 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-6486
OpenAlex
W2070226591
Cited by
366
References
0
FWCI
10.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: COMING TO TERMS WITH THE FIELD: UNDERSTANDING AND DOING ORGANIZATIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1991.tb00268.x
The paper
Rosen, M. (1991). COMING TO TERMS WITH THE FIELD: UNDERSTANDING AND DOING ORGANIZATIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY*. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1991.tb00268.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.