Autoethnographic Writing

  • Ajnesh Prasad


Extending the works of scholars who have elucidated writing as the quintessential site for social transformation, the aim of this chapter is to locate the myriad possibilities for actualizing Donna Haraway’s concept of cyborg writing in the field of organization studies by adopting autoethnographic-inflected approaches to research. I contend that cyborg writing functions as a discursive mechanism by which to disrupt Enlightenment ideals of Cartesian duality, objectivity, and rationality. These ideals inform the very structure of masculine privilege that emerges from having a society that is organized along androcentric values. Situating the scholarship of Jo Brewis, a contemporary scholar in the field, I illuminate how cyborg writing can be practiced effectively through autoethnography, whereby greater richness is imparted into conceptualizations of, and theorizing on, organizational and management phenomena. I conclude the chapter with a discussion of the implications of cyborg writing, and with the identification of two trajectories that scholars can pursue in future studies. Progress along these two paths will move toward actualizing the feminist project for gender egalitarianism.


Androcentricism Autoethnography Brewis Cyborg writing Gender Haraway 


  1. Alcadipani, R., & Hassard, J. (2010). Actor-network theory, organizations and critique: Towards a politics of organizing. Organization, 17(4), 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashcraft, K. L. (1998). ‘I wouldn’t say I’m a feminist, but …’: Organizational micropractice and gender identity. Management Communication Quarterly, 11(4), 587–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashcraft, K. L., & Mumby, D. K. (2004). Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Auster, E. R., & Prasad, A. (2016). Why do women still not make it to the top: Dominant organizational ideologies and biases by promotion committees limit opportunities to destination positions. Sex Roles, 75(5–6), 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baxter, J., & Chua, W. F. (2008). The field researcher as author-writer. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 5(2), 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, E., & King, D. (2010). The elephant in the room: Critical management studies conferences as a site of body pedagogics. Management Learning, 41(4), 429–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell, E., & Shoaib, H. (2014). The not-so-dark side of emotions: Anger as a resource in research apprenticeship. In C. Clarke, M. Broussine, & L. Watts (Eds.), Researching with feeling: Aspects of social and organizational research (pp. 66–78). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Bell, E., & Sinclair, A. (2014). Reclaiming eroticism in the academy. Organization, 21(2), 268–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bendl, R. (2008). Gender subtexts—Reproduction of exclusion in organizational discourse. British Journal of Management, 19(s1), s50–s64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. O. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96–105.Google Scholar
  11. Bowring, M. (2004). Resistance is not futile: Liberating Captain Janeway from the masculine-feminine dualism of leadership. Gender, Work and Organization, 11(4), 381–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brewis, J. (2004). Refusing to be ‘me’. In R. Thomas, A. J. Mills, & J. Helms Mills (Eds.), Identity politics at work: Resisting gender, gendering resistance (pp. 23–39). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Brewis, J. (2005). Signing my life away? Research sex and organization. Organization, 12(4), 493–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brewis, J., & Linstead, S. (2000a). Sex, work and sex work: Eroticizing organization. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brewis, J., & Linstead, S. (2000b). ‘The worst thing is the screwing’ (1): Consumption and the management of identity in sex work. Gender, Work and Organization, 7(2), 84–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brewis, J., & Linstead, S. (2000c). ‘The worst thing is the screwing’ (2): Context and career in sex work. Gender, Work and Organization, 7(3), 168–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Calas, M., & Smircich, L. (1991). Voicing seduction to silence leadership. Organization Studies, 12(4), 567–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cixous, H. (1976). The laugh of the Medusa (K. Cohen & P. Cohen, Trans.). Signs, 1(4), 875–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cullen, D., & Gotell, L. (2002). From orgasms to organizations: Maslow, women’s sexuality and the gendered foundations of the needs hierarchy. Gender, Work and Organization, 9(5), 537–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  21. Donaldson, L. (2003). A critique of postmodernism in organizational studies. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 21, pp. 169–202). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  22. Durepos, G., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T. G. (2012). Theorizing the past: Realism, relativism, relationalism and the reassembly of Weber. Management and Organizational History, 7(3), 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Durepos, G., Prasad, A., & Villanueva, C. E. (2016). How might we study international business to account for marginalized subjects?: Turning to practice and situating knowledges. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 12(3), 306–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Essers, C., & Benschop, Y. (2009). Muslim businesswomen doing boundary work: The negotiation of Islam, gender and ethnicity within entrepreneurial contexts. Human Relations, 62(3), 403–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fernando, D., & Prasad, A. (in press). Sex-based harassment and organizational silencing: How women are led of reluctant acquiescence in academia. Human Relations.
  26. Flaherty, C. (2014, September 24). Salaita speaks out. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from‐salaita‐speaks‐out‐about‐lost‐job‐offer‐illinois.
  27. Fotaki, M. (2011). The sublime object of desire (for knowledge): Sexuality at work in business and management schools in England. British Journal of Management, 22(1), 42–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fotaki, M. (2013). No woman is like a man (in academia): The masculine symbolic order and the unwanted female body. Organization Studies, 34(9), 1251–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fotaki, M., Metcalfe, B., & Harding, N. (2014). Writing materiality into management and organization studies through and with Luce Irigaray. Human Relations, 67(10), 1239–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fotaki, M., & Prasad, A. (2015). Questioning neoliberal capitalism and economic inequality in business schools. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 14(4), 556–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fox, S. (2000). Communities of practice, Foucault and actor-network theory. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 853–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fraser, N., & Nicholson, L. J. (1997). Social criticism without philosophy: An encounter between feminism and postmodernism. In D. T. Meyers (Ed.), Feminist social thought: A reader (pp. 132–146). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Gremmen, I., & Benschop, Y. (2009). Walking the tightrope: Constructing gender and professional identities in account management. Journal of Organization and Management, 15(5), 596–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grey, C., & Sinclair, A. (2006). Writing differently. Organization, 13(3), 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Haraway, D. (1997). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. In D. T. Meyers (Ed.), Feminist social thought: A reader (pp. 502–531). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  38. Haraway, D. (2010). When species meet: Staying with the trouble. Environment and Planning D, 28(1), 53–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harding, N. (2008). The ‘I’, the ‘me’ and the ‘you know’: Identifying identities in organizations. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 3(1), 42–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harding, N., Ford, J., & Fotaki, M. (2013). Is the ‘F’-word still dirty? A past, present and future of/for feminist and gender studies in Organization. Organization, 20(1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hatch, M. J. (1996). The role of the researcher: An analysis of narrative position in organization theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 5(4), 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hird, M. J. (2004). Sex, gender, and science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hopfl, H. (2000). The suffering mother and the miserable son: Organizing women and organizing women’s writing. Gender, Work and Organization, 7(2), 98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Khoury, T. A., & Prasad, A. (2016). Entrepreneurship amid concurrent institutional constraints in less developed countries. Business and Society, 55(7), 934–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Knights, D., & Kerfoot, D. (2004). Between representations and subjectivity: Gender binaries and the politics of organizational transformation. Gender, Work and Organization, 11(4), 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Laqueur, T. (1990). Making sex: Body and gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Li, E. P. H., & Prasad, A. (2018). From wall 1.0 to wall 2.0: Graffiti, social media, and ideological acts of resistance and recognition among Palestinian refugees. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(4), 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Trumansburg, NY: The Crossing Press.Google Scholar
  51. Mintzberg, H. (1991). A letter to Marta Calas and Linda Smircich. Organization Studies, 12(4), 602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Muhr, S. L. (2011). Caught in the gendered machine: On the masculine and feminine in cyborg leadership. Gender, Work and Organization, 18(3), 337–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Muhr, S. L., & Rehn, A. (2015). On gendered technologies and cyborg writing. Gender, Work and Organization, 22(2), 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Parker, M. (1998). Judgement day: Cyborganization, humanism and postmodern ethics. Organization, 5(4), 503–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Phillips, M., Pullen, A., & Rhodes, C. (2014). Writing organization as gendered practice: Interrupting the libidinal economy. Organization Studies, 35(3), 313–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Prasad, A. (2012a). Beyond analytical dichotomies. Human Relations, 65(5), 567–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Prasad, A. (2012b). Dialectics, hegemony, and the holographic globality: Tales of personal and entrepreneurial survival in Palestine/Israel. (PhD dissertation). York University.Google Scholar
  58. Prasad, A. (2013). Playing the game and trying not to lose myself: A doctoral student’s perspective on the institutional pressures for research output. Organization, 20(6), 936–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Prasad, A. (2014a). You can’t go home again: And other psychoanalytic lessons from crossing a neo-colonial border. Human Relations, 67(2), 233–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Prasad, A. (2014b). Corporeal ethics in an ethnographic encounter: A tale of embodiment from the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(4), 525–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Prasad, A. (2015a). Liminal transgressions, or where should the critical academy go from here? Reimagining the future of doctoral education to engender research sustainability. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 26, 108–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Prasad, A. (2015b). A rebel without a cause? (Re)claiming the question of the political in critical management studies. In A. Prasad, P. Prasad, A. J. Mills, & J. Helms Mills (Eds.), The Routledge companion to critical management studies (pp. 80–90). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Prasad, A. (2016). Cyborg writing as a political act: Reading Donna Haraway in organization studies. Gender, Work and Organization, 23(4), 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Prasad, A. (2018). When is economic inequality justified? Business Horizons, 61(6), 855–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Prasad, A., & Holzinger, I. (2013). Seeing through smoke and mirrors: A critical analysis of marketing CSR. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1915–1921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Prasad, A., & Qureshi, T. (2017). Race and racism in an elite postcolonial context: Reflections from investment banking. Work, Employment & Society, 31(2), 352–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Prasad, A., Segarra, P., & Villanueva, C. E. (in press). Situating knowledges through feminist objectivity in organization studies: Donna Haraway and the partial perspective. In R. McMurray & A. Pullen (Eds.), Routledge focus on women writers in organization studies: Rethinking culture, organization and management. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Pullen, A. (2006). Gendering the research self: Social practice and corporeal multiplicity in the writing of organizational research. Gender, Work and Organization, 13(3), 277–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pullen, A., & Rhodes, C. (2015). Writing, the feminine and organization. Gender, Work and Organization, 22(2), 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rhodes, C., & Brown, A. D. (2005a). Narrative, organizations and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(3), 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rhodes, C., & Brown, A. D. (2005b). Writing responsibly: Narrative fiction and organization studies. Organization, 12(4), 467–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Roy, S. (2004). Short cuts. London Review of Books, 26(7), 24.Google Scholar
  73. Runte, M., & Mills, A. J. (2006). Cold war, chilly climate: Exploring the roots of gendered discourse in organization and management theory. Human Relations, 59(5), 695–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Segarra, P., & Prasad, A. (2018). How does corporeality inform theorizing: Revisiting Hannah Arendt and the banality of evil. Human Studies, 41(4). Scholar
  75. Segarra, P., & Prasad, A. (in press). Colonization, migration, and right-wing extremism: The constitution of embodied life of a dispossessed undocumented immigrant woman. Organization.Google Scholar
  76. Shilling, C. (1993). The body and social theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  77. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Styhre, A., & Eriksson-Zetterquist, U. (2008). Thinking the multiple in gender and diversity studies: Examining the concept of intersectionality. Gender in Management, 23(6), 567–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Thomas, R., & Davies, A. (2002). Gender and new public management: Reconstituting academic subjectivities. Gender, Work and Organization, 9(4), 372–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tourish, D. (2011). Leading questions: Journal rankings, academic freedom and performativity: What is, or should be, the future of Leadership. Leadership, 7(3), 367–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tourish, D. (2015). Some announcements, reaffirming the critical ethos of Leadership and what we look for in submissions. Leadership, 11(2), 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Toye, M. E. (2010). Towards a poethics of love: Poststructuralist feminist ethics and literary creation. Feminist Theory, 11(1), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Toye, M. E. (2012). Donna Haraway’s cyborg touching (up/on) Luce Irigaray’s ethics and the interval between: Poethics as embodied writing. Hypatia, 27(1), 182–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vachhani, S. J. (2015). Organizing love—Thoughts on the transformative and activist potential of feminine writing. Gender, Work and Organization, 22(2), 148–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Willmott, H. (2011). Journal list fetishism and the perversion of scholarship: Reactivity and the ABS list. Organization, 18(4), 429–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajnesh Prasad
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Royal Roads UniversityVictoriaCanada
  2. 2.Tecnologico de MonterreyMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations