Abstract
Making sense of what goes on in ‘the field’ is complexly messy in ethnographic research. Analysis is often more difficult in research teams because of team members’ individual insights, and multiple, diverse and often conflicting interpretations of what is going on. Negotiating this complex messiness can be fraught with power tussles, which often result in uncomfortable compromises. While this does not match the authors’ experience in this case study, they describe, in detail, the processes they devised to manage fieldwork, analyse data, write and disseminate research outcomes. This chapter includes excerpts and images of these project management tools, which document every aspect of their collaborative teamwork in the study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Acker, J. (1990). Jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158. doi:10.1177/089124390004002002.
Bendix Petersen, E. (2007). Passionately attached: academic subjects of desire. In B. Davies (Ed.), Judith Butler in conversation. Analyzing the texts and talk of everyday life (pp. 55–67). Newyork: Routledge.
Clerke, T. (2010). Gender and discipline: publication practices in design. Journal of Writing for Creative Practice, 3(1), 64–78. doi:10.1386/jwcp.3.1.63_1.
Clerke, T. (2012). Women writing design scholarship: reconfiguring academic work in design. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of Technology, Sydney.
Davis, H., & Day, C. (2010). Working in partnership: the family partnership model. London: Pearson.
Davis, H., Day, C., & Bidmead, C. (2002). Working in partnership with parents: the parent adviser model. London: The Psychological Corporation Limited.
Erickson, K., & Stull, D. (1998). Doing team ethnography: warnings and advice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Hopwood, N. (2013a). Ethnographic fieldwork as embodied material practice: reflections from theory and the field. In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), Studies in symbolic interaction (pp. 225–243). Bingley: Emerald Press.
Hopwood, N. (2013b). The rhythms of pedagogy: An ethnographic study of parenting education practices. Studies in Continuing Education. doi:10.1080/0158037X.2013.787983
Hopwood, N. (2013c). Understanding partnership practice in primary health as pedagogic work: what can Vygotsky’s theory of learning offer? Australian Journal of Primary Health. doi:10.1071/PY12141
Hopwood, N. (forthcoming-a). Professional practice and learning: times, spaces, bodies, things. London: Springer.
Hopwood, N. (forthcoming-b). Relational geometries of the body practising ethnographic fieldwork. In B. Green & N. Hopwood (Eds.), Body/Practice: The body in professional practice, learning and education. London: Springer Press.
Hopwood, N. (in press-a). A sociomaterial account of partnership, signatures and accountability in practice. Professions & Professionalism.
Hopwood, N. (in press-b). Four essential dimensions of workplace learning. Journal of Workplace Learning.
Hopwood, N. (in press-c). Using video to trace the embodied and material in a study of health practice. Qualitative Research Journal.
Hopwood, N., & Clerke, T. (2012a, September 18–21). An ethnographic study of parenting pedagogies through partnership. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Cadiz.
Hopwood, N., & Clerke, T. (2012b). Partnership and pedagogy in child and family health practice. Saarbrûcken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.
Hopwood, N., Dunston, R., & Clerke, T. (2013). The family partnership model in practice in New South Wales: working with families with complex needs to make a difference. Case study of coproduction for Governance International. Retrieved from http://www.govint.org/good-practice/case-studies/the-family-partnership-model-in-practice-in-new-south-wales/
Hopwood, N., & Lee, A. (2012). Dangerous proposition: concepts of partnership-based practice have international currency but no shared meaning. Paper presented at the ProPEL International Conference—Professions and professional learning in troubling times: emerging practices and transgressive knowledges, Stirling.
Morley, L. (2003). Women’s careers in higher education: theorising gender inequalities. Paper presented at the Europeanisation of Higher Education and Gender, Brussels.
Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: a method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 516–529). Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.
Rose G (2007). Visual methodologies: an introduction to the interpretation of visual materials (2 ed.). London; Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications Ltd.
Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: a philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Schatzki, T. R. (2003). A new societist social ontology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 33(2), 174–202. doi:10.1177/0048393103033002002.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. London: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Clerke, T., Hopwood, N. (2014). Teamwork Processes. In: Doing Ethnography in Teams. SpringerBriefs in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05618-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05618-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-05617-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05618-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)