Download pdf - Breaking the Silence About Exiting Fieldwork: A Relational Approach and Its Implications For Theorizing

BREAKING THE SILENCE ABOUT EXITINGFIELDWORK: A RELATIONAL APPROACH AND

ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORIZING

SNEJINA MICHAILOVAUniversity of Auckland

REBECCA PIEKKARIAalto University

EMMANUELLA PLAKOYIANNAKIAristotle University of Thessaloniki

TIINA RITVALAIRINA MIHAILOVA

ASTA SALMIAalto University

It is surprising that, to date, a discussion of exiting fieldwork is absent from themanagement and organization literature—an absence we believe is unjustified. Weargue that analyzing exit from fieldwork is important for theorizing. We combine twostreams of research—ethnography in the broader social sciences and business mar-keting on dissolving relationships—to propose a relational framework for conceptu-alizing and analyzing exit. The framework represents a first attempt to examineexiting in a systematic and nuanced manner, with the objective of understanding whyand how breaking the silence about exiting fieldwork may advance theorizing. Wedevelop a typology of four exit types leading to four different approaches to theorizing.We suggest that exit may bring about a new beginning in theorizing rather thanclosure and that it is not only high-quality relationships in the field but also those thatare disruptive that may lead to interesting theorizing.

Theory cannot be improved until we improve thetheorizing process, and we cannot improve thetheorizing process until we describe it more ex-plicitly, operate it self-consciously, and decoupleit from validation more deliberately. A more ex-plicit description is necessary so we can see moreclearly where the process can be modified andwhat the consequences of these modificationsmight be (Weick, 1989: 516).

One of the ways in which scholars theorize isby conducting rigorous, high-quality fieldwork.Collecting original data in real organizationsmakes fieldwork different not only from desk

research in general but also from working withcomputer simulations, laboratory experiments,and secondary databases. Fieldwork is chal-lenging and rewarding because it occurs out-side controlled settings; employs a more idio-graphic, open-ended research mode (McCall,2006); and has no prespecified algorithms forproducing it (Gephart, 2004)—it is “a journey thatmay involve almost as many steps backward asforward” (Edmondson & McManus, 2007: 1173).One critical step in this journey is exiting field-work, which, in line with Weick’s quotationabove, contributes to a more explicit descriptionof the theorizing process. To date, the literaturehas been silent on exiting fieldwork.

In simplistic terms, exiting implies withdraw-ing from the research site1 where empirical data

We thank associate editor Rick Delbridge and three anon-ymous reviewers for their developmental and thoughtfulguidance throughout the review process. We highly appre-ciate the feedback provided by John Van Maanen. We ac-knowledge the comments we received from David Guttorm-sen and Stuart Macdonald and from colleagues at ourrespective institutions and at seminars and conferenceswhere we presented earlier versions of the paper.

1 The terms research site, field, field site, fieldwork site,and sometimes locale are typically used interchangeably in

� Academy of Management Review2014, Vol. 39, No. 2, 138–161.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0403

138Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyrightholder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

have been generated over a period of time. Froma relational perspective, however, exiting is farmore than that; it is at the core of the embeddedprocess of disentangling from the field. Weadopt this perspective and view exiting field-work as a process (rather than a single act) ofending relationships developed with researchparticipants over a period of time, be it longer orshorter. It is affected by past, present, and futureconnections, which may be personal or organi-zational, formal or informal. Exiting the fieldmay occur only once during the course of thestudy or take place several times when data arecollected periodically. Exiting fieldwork is asso-ciated with changes in identities and emotionsas enacted and experienced by both the re-searcher and research participants and their(self) learning and reflexivity. Understood in thisway, exiting raises important questions aboutthe foundation of fieldwork and theorizing.

Our analysis of exiting fieldwork is placed ona continuum that has “inquiry from the inside”and “inquiry from the outside” as its end points(Evered & Louis, 1981). This continuum goes be-yond the division between quantitative andqualitative research; quantitative researcherscan indeed be seriously engaged in the physicalresearch setting, whereas qualitative research-ers may be sitting behind a desk at the researchsite or studying archives or media texts on theuniversity premises. On the one hand, when in-quiring from the inside, researchers immersephysically and psychologically in the field, andtheir fieldwork is often likely to be more inti-mate, open-ended, and holistic. Inquiring fromthe outside, on the other hand, tends to be lessintimate and somewhat more transactional andclosed-ended. However, it does not exclude con-cerns about how researcher-researched rela-tionships and social exchange develop in thefield. Regardless of the type of inquiry, issues ofsubjectivity, interpretation, meaning, and rela-tionships will always matter, albeit to a differ-ent extent (see Boisot & McKelvey, 2010; Chris-tensen & Carlile, 2009). Because of this, our ideasare applicable to both types of inquiry but are

likely to resonate more strongly with scholars en-gaged in the inquiry from the inside. It is becauseof their deep immersion in the first place thatexiting from the field is at all possible.

By breaking the silence about exiting from field-work and providing original insight into this phe-nomenon, we aim to change in three fundamentalaspects the way theorizing is commonly under-stood. First, we contest the temporal dimension oftheorizing by arguing that exit may introduce anew beginning to theorizing rather than bring it toclosure. Theorizing may occur through rather thanafter exiting since exiting enables the researcherto maintain a dual state of connect and disconnectwith the phenomenon under study. Understandingand appreciating this paradox of distance are crit-ical for good theorizing.

Second, we challenge the view that interest-ing theorizing would be an outcome only ofhigh-quality, sustained relationships in thefield, as suggested by the advocates of the rela-tional foundation of research (Dutton & Duke-rich, 2006; Gulati, 2007; Van Maanen, 2010). Ourstudy proposes a typology of four different exittypes, which are coupled with four different the-orizing approaches: conventional, paradoxical,one-sided, and blind alley theorizing. We visu-alize these as a model and a matrix. Whereasmost exits tend to be anticipated, contributing toconventional theorizing, sometimes a revelatoryexit caused by a breakdown of relationshipswith research participants may spur a processof paradoxical theorizing and lead to paradigm-challenging insights. In this way we contributeto the relational foundation of research, whichhas previously not incorporated exit as a dis-tinct phase of the research journey or exploredthe relationship between exiting and theorizing.

Third, management and organization re-search would benefit from acknowledging andembracing self-consciousness as an inherentpart of the theorizing process (Sandberg & Tsou-kas, 2011; Shepherd & Sutcliffe, 2011). VanMaanen, Sørensen, and Mitchell (2007) point outthat theory and method are highly interrelatedin practice but often treated as conceptually in-dependent. Our nuanced analysis of the waysscholars think and (not) talk about exiting aimsto legitimize the discussion about exiting thefield in published work. In pragmatic terms, thevalue of our contribution is to “improve the cur-rent research practice of informed scholars”(Whetten, 1990: 581).

the literature, and we follow this convention. Some authorsdifferentiate between field and site by pointing out that it ispossible to situate “the field” more precisely as a site con-structed through shifting entanglements of anthropologicalnotions of culture. A physical movement away from the sitedoes not necessarily mean leaving the field.

2014 139Michailova, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, Ritvala, Mihailova, and Salmi

The remainder of the article unfolds in thefollowing way. In the next section we look at theprocesses of theorizing and of exiting fieldworkand establish the link between the two—a linkthat, to the best of our knowledge, has not beenproposed previously. We then present the re-sults of our systematic review of the method-ological literature and outline the theoreticalfoundation of our study—selected ideas fromethnography and the business marketing litera-ture—which provide valuable insights and ameaningful vocabulary for building a relationalframework on theorizing through exit. If viewedseparately, ethnography and business market-ing provide an incomplete understanding of ex-iting the field, but when combined they form asolid and generative theoretical foundation forconceptualizing this critical step in fieldwork.We then propose a typology of four exit typesleading to four different theorizing approaches.We conclude by summarizing our main contri-butions, outlining the implications of our anal-ysis for writing and reading scholarly work, andsuggesting directions for future research.

EXITING FIELDWORK AND THEORIZING:THE SURPRISING LINK

There appears to be insufficient understand-ing of the theorizing process in managementand organization studies (Folger & Turillo, 1999;Locke, Golden-Biddle, & Feldman, 2008; Weick,1999). The emphasis there, as well as in thesocial sciences in general, seems to be on theoryas the frozen end product rather than the pro-cess itself. When scholars discuss theorizing,their discussion often relates to theory testingrather than theory development. Set against thisbackground, we use the term theorizing (ratherthan theory), which involves a mixture of “ob-serving something, penetrating something, andfinding something out” (Swedberg, 2012: 9). Inparticular, we are concerned with theorizingthat results from interaction between the re-searcher and research participants in the field,rather than with theorizing generated from anisolated armchair behind closed doors; that isbased on one’s own rather than other people’sfieldwork; and that aims at developing theoryrather than testing/validating it.

Exiting fieldwork is particularly well linkedwith such a view of theorizing. Exiting is closerto the write-up stage than any other fieldwork

stage and therefore also temporally closer tomeaningful theorizing. The very decision abouttiming the exit from fieldwork has tangible con-sequences for theorizing. Contrary to the viewthat one should exit once “theoretical satura-tion”—an expression often used as a rhetoricaldevice to legitimize the “right” timing of exitingfieldwork— has been achieved (Glaser &Strauss, 1967), it can be argued that the questionof when to exit can only be answered arbitrarily.A study can be considered to be completedwhen a sufficient understanding of the phenom-enon under study has been achieved. As Shaffirand Stebbins point out:

Because our understanding of the social worldis necessarily incomplete and imperfect, repre-senting an approximation and oversimplifica-tion, no study can ever be considered finished.There are always deeper levels of understand-ing to be achieved. Yet if we did not withdrawfrom the field every once in a while to try to makesense out of what we have seen, heard, and ex-perienced, we would be left with piles of datawith no understanding of the social world at all(1991: 242).

Building on Weick’s (1989, 1999) and Swed-berg’s (2012) views on theorizing, we furtherelaborate on the link between exiting fieldworkand theorizing. First, theorizing is not necessar-ily a linear process. The activities that make uptheorizing—observing, choosing something in-teresting, formulating the central concept, build-ing the theory, and completing the tentative the-ory—can happen in a very different order or inno order at all (Swedberg, 2012). There is noreason to exclude the option of them happeningupon exiting the field. When exiting, the re-searcher can indeed find something that hasremained hidden or appeared trivial duringfieldwork but that suddenly stands out as impor-tant or surprising. As an act of discontinuity,exiting is likely to prompt creativity, reflection,and learning—processes necessary for buildinggood theory (Weick, 1989). Indeed, learning isoften caused by stress and disequilibrium, and,in this regard, exit represents an untappedsource of important (self) learning. Counterintui-tively, exit can initiate rather than close a learn-ing cycle, which is at the heart of interestingtheorizing.

Second, unlike researchers who have dis-cussed theorizing in terms of relationshipsamong scholars (e.g., Calás & Smircich, 1999),

140 AprilAcademy of Management Review

we open up space for bringing research partic-ipants into the exercise of theorizing. Theorizingrequires passion, emotional engagement, andempathy with research participants. By relyingactively on “the researched”—on their motiva-tion to engage in fieldwork, their interpreta-tions, and their reflections—the researcher’s po-sition is not automatically privileged. It iscommon that the reasons for engaging in field-work and the experiences during and at the endof fieldwork are perceived very differently bythe researcher and the research participants,both at the individual and collective levels(Clark, 2010). Giving consideration to such mul-tiple viewpoints can lead to richer, more nu-anced theorizing. Exiting provides the opportu-nity to explore again, but in a different situation,the dynamics of the researcher-researched rela-tionship, how the research is coconstituted bythe researcher and research participants, andhow they may cotheorize. Exiting can reveal a“moment of truth” and provide an excellent op-portunity for both the researcher and researchparticipants to reconsider the research relation-ship and its outcomes.

Third, there is need for more mindfulness withregard to the “tacit practices of theorizing” andfor directing accuracy in explanations “at theexplainer rather than the objects being ex-plained” (Weick, 1999: 802). Reflexivity, (self)learning, and unlearning are crucial in the the-orizing process. To be reflexive is to “have anongoing conversation about the experiencewhile simultaneously living in the moment”(Hertz, 1997: viii). It refers to “thoughtful, con-scious self-awareness” (Finlay, 2002: 532). Klein-sasser (2000: 158) relates reflexivity to “writing-to-learn and un-learn”—looking for ungroundedassumptions, possible mistakes, and omissionsis invaluable in theorizing. Naturally, reflexivityis infused in the process of exiting fieldwork.Discussions of exit from fieldwork invite schol-ars to become more mindful and self-consciousof important tacit practices and accuracy. Suchdiscussions can explicitly locate the researcherin the research process and make the exitingprocess visible. When exiting becomes visible,it can be reviewed and discussed by others, andothers can learn from it.

Fourth, exiting blurs the distinction betweenthe personal and the theoretical, rather thanholds them separate. Both theorizing and exitingare inherently personal. According to Valéry,

“There is no theory that is not a fragment, care-fully prepared, of some autobiography” (1958;cited in Bedeian, 2004: 93). In this sense “allscholarship is self-revelatory. It is as if there isembedded, within the body of one’s publishedwork, a hidden Rorschach test that reveals morethan even the author sometimes knows” (Bar-ney, 2005: 280). Since it is impossible to makesense of a situation without a personal identity,“it is important for theorists to decide (and de-clare) who they are” (Huff, 2005: 350). Embracingthe self-revelatory nature of research is charac-teristic of the most influential scholars:

They understand that the “search for truth” isconditioned by our personal experiences, andthat the definition of what constitutes an “inter-esting question” is only partly a matter of logicand epistemology. After all, from among all the“interesting questions” one could pose, why is aparticular question asked? (Barney, 2005: 280).

Thus, no one can exit or theorize for you—youhave to do it yourself. In this regard, exitingprovides an excellent opportunity to embracethe personal nature of theorizing.

Finally, and related to the above, exiting re-veals parts of who we are as researchers orresearch participants, as well as human beings.Without understanding ourselves, how can weunderstand the products of our theorizing?Fieldwork is in itself “a social setting inhabitedby embodied, emotional, physical selves” (Cof-fey, 1999: 8), which calls for understanding,(re)defining, (re)presenting, and challengingourselves as researchers and humans. The re-searcher embarks on a progression from igno-rant stranger to wise scholar, treading a paththrough (self) alienation to (self) enlightenment.The distance between the researcher and thefield is considered an epistemological neces-sity. The researcher cultivates strangeness anddistance in order to gain insights and under-standing of the field while experiencing per-sonal growth. During fieldwork, the researcheris likely to become a regular and often adoptsthe viewpoint of the subjects (West, 1980). Whenexiting, the researcher is “uncoupling from or-ganizations and individuals and though the cir-cumstances of each leavetaking may be unique,they involve loss of role, and thus create thepotential for redefinition of self” (Vaughan, 1986:188). This presents an opportunity to generatenew insights, particularly if the research partic-ipants are more open to revealing information


not shared before. Exiting allows for reflection,which is necessary for developing the research-er’s representation of the field (West, 1980) andof her/himself. Being honest instead of fabricat-ing desirable self-images can lead to high-quality theorizing.

COMBINING TWO STREAMS OF LITERATURETO UNDERSTAND EXIT

Our systematic review of the literature2 fromthe 1970s on, covering methodology journals,special issues devoted to research methods, eth-nography books, and research methods text-books in management and organization and thebroader social sciences, combined with a reviewof encyclopedias of research methods, state-ments of ethical practices, and editorial notes,led us to conclude that knowledge of what con-stitutes exit from fieldwork is missing. The verylimited number of management and organiza-tion writings that briefly mention exit, usually inpassing, present it in a simplistic manner. Forexample, Buchanan, Boddy, and McCalman callexit “getting out” (1988: 65). According to thisliterature, exiting the research site is, in es-sence, largely a physical process associatedwith reaching closure to fieldwork and terminat-ing relationships with research participants.The underlying view is that exiting is a rational,instrumental process, and the emphasis is onhow exit should be “executed” and “managed.”Moreover, a largely opportunistic perspective isconveyed in that researchers are advised toleave, once theoretical saturation (Glaser &Strauss, 1967) is reached and their goals areaccomplished. Lofland and Lofland (1995), too,

suggest that exiting the field basically refers toinforming people of one’s plans ahead of timeand trying to avoid leaving or appearing toleave abruptly. Such an approach, besides be-ing overly simplistic, focuses solely on the re-searcher—it is geared toward her/his self-interest and short-term personal gains and mayhave undesirable consequences for cultivatingand sustaining trust in the research setting.

To understand exiting from fieldwork, we in-tegrate selected ideas from two bodies of knowl-edge—namely, ethnography (as developed in itsintellectual home of social anthropology) andthe business marketing literature on dissolvingbusiness relationships. Using two different the-oretical approaches is meaningful because ouraim is to examine a phenomenon that has beenvirtually untouched thus far. The two areas ofresearch that we combine are far apart but havecompatible underlying assumptions (seeOkhuysen & Bonardi, 2011). Both groups of schol-ars view exiting as a process rather than a sin-gle act and seriously discuss the relational anddynamic involvement with the field—researchparticipants in ethnography and business part-ners in marketing. At the same time, these twoliterature streams have their respective and dis-tinct emphases. While ethnographers are ex-plicit about the centrality of identities, biogra-phy, feelings, meaning, and the context ofrelationships established in the field (e.g., Cof-fey, 1999; Czarniawska, 1998; Ortiz, 2004), mar-keting scholars emphasize how interpersonalrelationships serve business purposes at thefirm level (e.g., Agndal & Axelsson, 2002; Håkan-sson & Snehota, 1995) and explicitly recognizemanagerial agency.

We acknowledge that the insights we gainfrom the literature on ending relationships in abusiness context need to be applied carefully toexamining exit from research fieldwork. Thebusiness marketing literature stresses ongoingbusiness relationships, and most studies viewrelationship ending as a negative phenomenon;exit represents the “final outcome of a viciouscycle of declining satisfaction, commitment andperformance and increasing conflict” (Havila &Wilkinson, 2002: 191). Although marketing schol-ars acknowledge the possibility of reactivatingrelationships, they tend to view relationshipending as breaking the bonds between partners(e.g., Alajoutsijärvi, Möller, & Tähtinen, 2000;Halinen & Tähtinen, 2002). In the research con-

2 Our systematic literature review covers (1) key method-ological journals for the period 1995–2010 (OrganizationalResearch Methods, Qualitative Inquiry, Qualitative MarketResearch, Qualitative Research, Qualitative Research in Ac-counting and Management, Qualitative Research in Orga-nizations and Management), (2) special issues on researchmethodology in key management and organization journalsfor the period 1979–2010 (Administrative Science Quarterly,European Journal of Marketing, Industrial Marketing Man-agement, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Journalof Management Studies, Management International Review,Scandinavian Journal of Management), (3) editorial notes onwriting up qualitative research (Academy of ManagementJournal). (4) ten ethnography books in social sciences andseventeen ethnography and research methods textbooks inmanagement and organization, (5) encyclopedias of re-search methods, and (6) statements of ethical practices.


text, commitments are typically weaker and,hence, the termination and reactivation of rela-tionships are relatively easier. In addition,whereas in business both parties have a sharedinterest in engaging in a relationship for eco-nomic purposes, in research the relationship be-tween the researcher and the field typicallyserves the researcher. Thus, activities in the dis-engagement phase are often perceived differ-ently and usually initiated and communicatedby the researcher. Despite this, given that mar-keting scholars analyze relationships in thevery setting in which we as management andorganization researchers are interested, theirwork is relevant to us. It assists us in under-standing the mental models and actions of re-search participants in relationship endings. In-deed, the exchange of favors in researchrelationships (e.g., information exchange, corpo-rate sponsored research) may, in many ways,resemble that of economic exchange in busi-ness life.

Ethnographers’ View on Exiting Fieldwork

In our search for a rich and nuanced view ofexiting, we turned to social anthropological (andpartly sociological) sources of ethnography. Sev-eral intellectually stimulating linkages can bemade between social anthropology and busi-ness studies (Chapman, 1997). Compared tomanagement and organization ethnographers,ethnographers in the broader social sciencesview exiting the field as an experience to livethrough rather than an act to be managed. Whenit happens, exiting is viewed as a gradual anddrawn out process, potentially taking severalyears, rather than a quick act (Shaffir, Stebbins,& Turowetz, 1980). Indeed, ethnographers oftentalk about “beginning to withdraw” (Snow, 1980:108) or “an unwinding” rather than a departureor withdrawal from the field (Van Maanen, per-sonal communication). Coffey (1999) even sug-gests that leaving the field never happens com-pletely; for ethnographers this would meanleaving themselves, their pasts, and their mem-ories. For social anthropologists who choose tolive in the field, exiting might imply the loss of ahome and is likely to influence the ethnogra-pher’s self substantially. Van Maanen (2010: 244)points out that “ethnographic work lacks clo-sure” because of the meaningful relationshipswith research participants.

Exiting is an emotional experience of both acollective and personal(ized) nature, shaped bythe complex interplay between the researcherand research participants. For those with whomfield researchers have established relation-ships, it is much more than saying goodbye.Stebbins (1991) admits that personal, social, andethical involvements kept him in touch with thefield long after the completion of the researchproject. Similarly, Ortiz (2004) developed trustingand reciprocal relationships with his infor-mants, allowing him to delve into their privatelives. He became increasingly absorbed in hisresearch subjects’ experiences and turned into acompulsive data collector, making disengage-ment from the field very difficult. Thus, reachingsaturation is not a critical determinant of exit;rather, it is coming to terms with an appropriatetime to leave.

The emotional disengagement from the fieldand its people can also be difficult and eventraumatic for research participants. Accordingto Hammersley and Atkinson, “It can sometimesbe strange and disorienting for the people in thesetting to find out that the ethnographer is nolonger going to be a part of their everydayworld” (1995: 122). The participants in the fieldmay begin to identify with the researcher, evenin the course of short-term field projects.Baumeister and Leary (1995) voiced that evenwhen relationships are limited in time, groupmembers tend to resist the idea of dissolving;participants want to hold on to the relationship.

Ethnographers view exit as a temporal pro-cess that signals the end of a particular phase intheir life (Shaffir et al., 1980). When leaving thefield, the participants and the researcher makepromises, albeit rarely kept, to maintain the re-lationship. It is perhaps similar to leaving a jobor moving to another city and reassuring friendsthat you will not forget them and stay in touch.Exiting in this sense becomes a distinctive stageonly in retrospect as contact fades. Additionally,leaving the field may constitute a revelatorymoment of truth and, hence, can be anxiety pro-ducing. “Researchers are often unaware of howthe members regard them until they are eitherabout to leave or are actually out the door” (Alt-heide, 1980: 303). At the same time, exiting rep-resents the beginning of a new phase, perhapsin the form of data analysis and the write-up offieldwork, or moving to new research sites andpeople. As Coffey puts it, “The end of fieldwork


is a temporal boundary of life’s changing” (1999:106).

From an ethnographer’s perspective, each exitprocess is unique and locally situated. Shaffirand Stebbins (1991) noted that disengagementfrom the field cannot be patterned after a modelof how it should occur. Rather, exiting is anoutcome of a constant interplay between unfore-seen and planned contingencies in the field andnegotiations with research participants. Manydifferent situational influences shape the pro-cess of exiting. For example, “how one leavesthe field depends a great deal on how one en-tered it” (Letkemann, 1980: 292). The process ofdisengaging from the field is related to commit-ment structures and power relationships formedduring the entry phase (Shaffir & Stebbins, 1991).Therefore, a relational contract covering re-search relationships, allocation of tasks, andmoral obligations with regard to research disen-gagement can be valuable in charting coursesthrough which field exit may take place (Shaffiret al., 1980). Such contracts often outline who hasownership of data and how the researcher mayuse the material for scholarly writing after exit.Additionally, the process of leaving may alsodepend on whether the ethnographer’s trueidentity is revealed to field participants or dis-guised from them. Maines, Shaffir, and Turowetz(1980) observed that once the researcher’s iden-tity was disclosed, the participants were morewilling to accept her/his exit from the researchsite, a situation that is very different from covertresearch in which the researcher’s true inten-tions are never revealed to the researchparticipants.

Because of their personal, often confessionalnature, ethnographic insights on exiting arechallenging to directly apply to the field of man-agement and organization. Another limitation ofthis literature in relation to our study is thatethnographers discuss exiting in a rather fuzzymanner, without considering it as a distinctiveissue in fieldwork to be designed and managed.This is in sharp contrast to the approach ad-opted by many management and organizationresearchers—namely, to plan and execute exit-related decisions. Moreover, while ethnogra-phers are focused on the researcher-researchedrelationship, they tend not to consider explicitlythe multilayered nature of these relationships ortheir management. These limitations are coun-terbalanced, we argue, by the emphasis that the

literature on dissolving business relationshipsin marketing places on relationship embedded-ness and management.

Marketing Scholars’ View on EndingBusiness Relationships

The ending of business relationships, a grow-ing stream of research in business marketing, isguided by the need to understand holisticallythe interactive nature of relationships and theirnested context. Relationship ending is an evolv-ing process, not a single event or decision(Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987; Tähtinen & Halinen,2002), which takes place at individual, organiza-tional, interorganizational, and network levels(Halinen & Tähtinen, 2002). While business mar-keting scholars build on theories from socialpsychology (Baxter, 1985; Duck, 1982) and eco-nomics (Hirschman, 1970; Roemer, 2005), amongother fields, the uniqueness of their approachlies in capturing the embeddedness of actors (inour case the researcher) in a rich and complexweb of relationships. Indeed, the very notion ofembeddedness is at the heart of studying rela-tionship endings. Business marketing scholarsdifferentiate between various types of embed-dedness—social, market, technological, spatial,temporal, and political (Halinen & Törnroos,1998)—the key underlying principle being thatall economic action takes place in social net-works (Granovetter, 1985). They emphasize thatsocial bonds emerge only in response to eco-nomic, legal, administrative, and technicalbonds between the business partners and rep-resent merely one dimension of the businessrelationship (Håkansson & Snehota, 1995). Indi-viduals play an important role in business in-teraction by bringing along their social net-works based on personal history, family, friends,education, and earlier tasks in previous organi-zations. This “relationship sediment” (Agndal &Axelsson, 2002) provides a basis for businessinteraction between organizations.

The complex bond structure of relationshipscan function as a barrier to exit and even tietogether parties that are not satisfied with therelationship (Wendelin, 2011). In a research set-ting, too, parties exchange information, andsometimes technological artefacts or money,thereby creating market and technological de-pendencies that need to be considered whenexiting. Exits in management and organization


research are also spatially, geographically, andtemporally embedded. Each relationship has itsown relational time, with a specific history andstarting point. The early phase, during which arelational contract between parties is agreedupon, sets expectations as to how relationshipending is carried out. For example, when highinterdependency between partners has devel-oped over time, the ending process is likely to betime consuming and complicated. Havila andWilkinson (2002) and Pressey and Mathews(2003) have shown that despite breaks in a for-mal business relationship, social bonds be-tween individuals often persist. Similar to eth-nographers, some marketing scholars haveshifted their attention to the individual leveland the emotional dimension of exit (Ryan &Blois, 2010). They are, nevertheless, more con-cerned with the question of how relationshipending can be successfully managed at thefirm level.

The outlined complexities of endings indicatehow exit may have wide implications for thebroader community of actors, thus underliningthe need for careful management. Hence, mar-keting scholars have focused extensively oncommunication strategies for relationship end-ing (Alajoutsijärvi et al., 2000; Giller & Matear,2001; Halinen & Tähtinen, 2002). The way inwhich the intention to exit is communicated tothe other party varies in its directedness andorientation toward self versus others (Baxter, 1985).In business marketing the (implicit) aim is to un-dertake a “beautiful exit” (Alajoutsijärvi et al.,2000) because it provides the firm with betterchances to reestablish relationships and maintaina positive reputation as a business partner in re-lation to all actors in the network. These are im-portant goals in the research context as well; it iscritical for the researcher, the research team, theresearch institution, and the research communityas a whole that reaccess in future projects beensured. However, our key concern in this articleis not exiting as a means for paving the way forfuture research; rather, we are interested in exam-ining how exiting affects theorizing.

In summary, business marketers have madeserious attempts to understand the process ofending relationships. Their central unit of anal-ysis is the relationship rather than either of theinteracting parties. The social dimension is onlyone aspect of business relationships, which mayexplain their somewhat depersonalized and de-

humanized treatment. Business marketers alsotreat relationship ending as a nested processthat occurs at multiple levels. The embedded-ness argument suggests that while the qualityof a relationship ending process is mainly per-ceived by the actors involved, the outcomes ofthe ending are likely to affect the broader net-work of actors. In a research context the ramifi-cations of an individual researcher’s exit or adissolution process of a research project may beextensive, affecting the wider research commu-nity and potential future target organizations.

In what follows we use the shared and distinc-tive features of ethnography and business mar-keting to develop a relational framework on the-orizing through exiting.

TOWARD A RELATIONAL FRAMEWORK FORUNDERSTANDING THE LINK BETWEEN

EXITING AND THEORIZING

As mentioned at the beginning of the article,dominant methodological accounts portrayfieldwork primarily from the perspective of theresearcher. Wright observes that researchers’goals are often reduced to “obtaining as muchuseable data as quickly and easily as possiblewithout knowing who are the people providingthe data” (2011: 500). In this traditional perspec-tive research participants are given a relativelypassive role, if any. For participants, participa-tion in a research project often means separateincidents and ad hoc requests by the researcherto grant access and provide data. Endings ofresearch relationships are typically associatedwith research reports being delivered as part ofcompulsory communication.

Figure 1 introduces our relational frameworkon exiting and theorizing, which builds on in-sights from ethnography and business market-ing. The model incorporates the research partic-ipants’ perspective into understanding exitingand explicates their active role as contributorsto the theorizing process. They engage in theo-rizing when they step out from their practicesand are surprised or confronted by the re-searcher, for instance, in an interview situation.They also invite researchers to “bracket-out”(Finlay, 2002: 537) from their preexisting assump-tions and views. Like the researcher, researchparticipants are reflexive beings who arecoopted into the research journey as coresearch-ers (Finlay, 2002). In this way theorizing out-


comes are shared, shaped, and cocreated withthem along a journey that can be smooth orrocky. Although Figure 1 focuses on the exitphase of this journey, it is founded on the ideathat exiting is an inherent and vital part of re-lationship development, starting from the re-searcher’s very first contacts with the field.

Thus, each ending of fieldwork is a unique op-portunity for theorizing that builds on the previ-ous stages of interaction between the researcherand the research participants.

The upper part of Figure 1 summarizes howexit has been viewed in the ethnography litera-ture and business marketing literature, showing

FIGURE 1Relational Framework on Theorizing Through Exit

Exit in ethnography (social anthropology):

• Possibility of nonexit• Experience to live

through

• Focus on identity, emotions,and reflexivity

Exit in business marketingliterature:

• Exiting as a skillto be managed

• Embedded in dyads of organizations, networks

• Exiting from complex bond structures

Exit typesTheorizing

approaches

Scholarly

writing

Reflexivity and( self ) learning

Dual state ofconnect and disconnect

Change in

identities

Emotions

Researchrelationship

ResearcherResearch

participants

Theorizingthrough

exit

World ofpractice

World of

academia

Shared features amongethnography and business

marketing in relation to exit:

• Recognition andproblematization of exit

• Relational focus• Contextuality and

temporality ofrelationships


the shared and unique features of these twoliterature streams. In both, scholars recognizeand problematize exiting, emphasize its rela-tional nature, and accentuate relationships’ con-textuality and temporality. At the same time eth-nographers point out the possibility of neverexiting, viewing exit as an experience to livethrough. They discuss in detail identity, emo-tions, and reflexivity—a clearly different ap-proach from the one adopted by marketingscholars who treat exit as a skill to be managed,as a process that is embedded in dyads andnetworks and, hence, inseparable from leavingcomplex bond structures.

The middle and lower parts of Figure 1 ex-plain how exiting is shaped by the relationshipsbetween researchers and research participantsand how theorizing takes place through exiting.We reactivate key notions from our literaturereview of exiting and its link to theorizing—thedual state of connect and disconnect, reflexivityand (self) learning, emotions, and changes inidentities. As the middle element of Figure 1illustrates, the framework implies that knowl-edge is shared, shaped, discussed, and cocre-ated between researchers and research partici-pants. This breeds high-quality connections andfuels the possibility of interesting research (Dut-ton & Dukerich, 2006). Indeed, “fieldwork simplywill not generate good data and interestinganalyses without personal investment in the re-lations in the field” (Coffey, 1999: 39–40). Fieldrelationships provide an interactional context inwhich researchers change their identities andengage participants in theorizing. On the otherhand, if researchers see themselves as cotheo-rizers rather than solo theorizers, this also influ-ences their relationships in the field (Cunliffe,2010). In the extant literature there is an increas-ing trend to view data as constructions, createdthrough interaction between the researcher andthe group under study (Alvesson & Kärreman,2007; Van de Ven, 2007).

Moreover, exiting, like entering, is character-ized by relational embeddedness, which mayoccur at different levels—researcher, researchparticipants, researcher-participant relation-ships, research project, research institution, andstudied organization(s). This is illustrated inFigure 1 by the placement of the researcher inthe broader world of academia and researchparticipants in the world of practice. For in-stance, one may exit a concrete project but not

the organization where the data have been gen-erated. Or although a single researcher exits,others in the research team may still remain inthe field. The complexity of the research contextis intensified by the illusion, albeit a potentiallyuseful one, that exiting is in the hands of theresearcher, while more often than not it islargely shaped by the web of multiple relation-ships and their constituencies in the particulartemporal, political, personal, and institutionalsetting (see also Orr & Bennett, 2009). The re-search context is inherently dynamic and makesexiting complicated, puzzling, and often unpre-dictable—and impossible to isolate from theprocess of theorizing.

Research participants’ perceptions and ac-tions in the exit situation depend on the expec-tations built earlier during the fieldwork. Theexit stage brings to the fore expectations towardthe “give and take relationship” between re-search participants and researcher. Providingfeedback is the “give” ingredient after a long“take” period of generating field data. The un-derstanding of the deliverables from a researchproject varies considerably across researchsites, participants, and cultural contexts. Some-times it is not before exiting has taken placethat the researcher realizes why research par-ticipants engaged in the study in the first place.If the motive suddenly transpires during exiting,this may influence theorizing unexpectedly andquite dramatically.

Dual State of Connect and Disconnect

The immersion in the field should ideally beaccompanied by self-awareness and criticaldistance, not an easily negotiated balance. Theprocess of “keeping an identity and losing anidentity” (Coffey, 1999: 35) and the associateddual state of mind can be particularly fertilefor theorizing (see Figure 1). According toMintzberg:

To develop a good theory you have to connect anddisconnect. In other words, you have to get asclose to the phenomena as possible in diggingout the inputs (data, stories, and lots more), butthen be able to step back to make somethinginteresting out of them. Too connected, and yourisk getting co-opted by the phenomenon. . . . Buttoo disconnected and you cannot develop inter-esting theory either (2005: 365).


As far as cotheorizing and knowledge cocre-ation between the researcher and research par-ticipants are concerned, the key question is the“needed balance between developing friend-ship with participants and maintaining the dis-tance that will allow professional judgment”(Karnieli-Miller, Strier, & Pessach, 2009: 279). Thepath between intimacy and distance is far fromstraightforward. Shaffir and Stebbins refer tothis as “the paradox of intimacy: a high degreeof trust achieved early in an investigation mayactually curtail researchers’ freedom to look andask” (1991: 103). This is why, we argue, exitingprovides a potential avenue for new theoreticalrevelations.

Reflexivity and (Self) Learning

In accordance with our view of theorizing, therelational framework considers research to bean outcome jointly produced by research partic-ipants, the researcher, and the relationships be-tween them, which calls for a reflexive approach(see Figure 1). Such theorizing deconstructs re-searchers’ sole authority, empowering both re-searchers and research participants, whetherindividually or collectively, as “collaborators inthe same enterprise” (Alfred, 2008: 892). Duringfieldwork, researchers immerse themselves indifferent experienced realities, with the hope ofobtaining a deep understanding of the mean-ings that research participants attribute to thecontextual factors in the field rather than justreading about them. In this way researchersconstruct the accounts of the social world ratherthan simply mirror the reality (Hammersley &Atkinson, 1995). They interact with research par-ticipants, actively interpreting and continuallycreating images of themselves and others (Al-vesson & Sköldberg, 2009).

From this perspective, separating learningabout the self as a researcher is impossible, inthe same way as it is impossible to separate theresearch process from reflexivity, not only aspracticed by the researcher but also by researchparticipants (Finlay, 2002; Sandberg & Tsoukas,2011). Mutual learning illuminates deeper,richer meanings about both personal and theo-retical issues (Kleinsasser, 2000). According toArgyris and Schön (1978), learning is facilitatedby occasions of reflection and joint interpreta-tion. Dynamics inherent in exiting fieldwork canbe harnessed to unravel relational complexities

and richness. Such a process embraces “theorybuilding as a cumulative enterprise” (Gulati,2007: 777) and makes theorizing a mutualendeavor.

Emotions

While acknowledging the physicality of exit-ing, we extend this view by also incorporatingemotions, central in ethnographic research, intoour relational framework (see Figure 1). In man-agement and organization studies researchersseem to clearly privilege the cognitive and thebehavioral over the emotional. Fieldworkerstypically omit research participants’ emotionsas well as their own. In fact, the two likely gohand in hand. Kleinman and Copp point out that“if we believe we cannot understand a groupwithout acknowledging our own emotions, wecan hardly ignore how participants feel” (1993:53). The authors suggest a two-stage model offeelings: “initially, we keep a low profile, actingemotionally flat, passive, and nonthreatening,and learn enough to avoid embarrassing our-selves or getting kicked out of the field,” butonce we feel connected to research participants,“we think we must consistently feel good aboutthem” (Kleinman & Copp, 1993: 28). Establishingrapport quickly and efficiently and closing tiessoon after may be detrimental to our fieldworkand, hence, also to our theorizing.

However, new ideas and meanings, and soalso theorizing, are closely related to emotions.“Heartbreak can help scholars analytically andemotionally connect with their data, the peoplethey study, and shape the purpose of their workand life” (Whiteman, 2010: 328). Whiteman la-ments that “management studies isn’t your typ-ical heartbreaker” (2010: 328), and, therefore, weseem to miss excellent theorizing opportuni-ties. Locke et al. (2008) also point out that it isimportant for researchers to work with strongfeelings engendered by the research experi-ence because they can assist in moving be-yond what researchers presume to alreadyknow. Van Maanen, Manning, and Miller high-light that

anger, boredom, confusion, disgust, self-doubt,depression, lust, despair, frustration, and embar-rassment are perhaps more than occasionally as-sociated with fieldwork. . . . we can learn a gooddeal more from the field by treating our feelingsas aids to analysis rather than hindrances (1993:vii–viii).


Therefore, emotions should not be closed downor suppressed; they can be at the heart of thetheorizing journey. Exiting is a particularly fer-tile stage for making this happen because itinvolves going through a number of emotionalstates.

Disengagement from the field means leavingpersonal relationships, and this can be associ-ated with psychological stress (Czarniawska,1998; Giller & Matear, 2001). The emotional con-sequences of leaving fieldwork can be long-lasting and, in extreme cases, never-ending forboth researchers and research participants.However, we typically tend to treat negativefeelings as mistakes to be avoided, while, infact, they can provide fertile conditions for the-orizing and trigger counterfactual thoughts (Ro-ese, 1997).

Thus, the process of exiting is a contestedterrain serving as the loci of multiple and mul-tivalent emotions, and it is because of this that itcan be powerful for learning and unlearning. AsFigure 1 suggests, emotions can be seen as in-strumental for the successful outcome of the the-orizing process, and, hence, they deserve a le-gitimate place in the representations oftheorizing and should not be saved only for themost informal telling.

Changes in Identities

As depicted in Figure 1, the researcher’s ownpersonal and professional identity is estab-lished and shaped in the field. This processmay take a long time and blur the boundariesbetween the researcher’s self and the field.Through their relationships with research par-ticipants, researchers may, in essence, reinventthemselves. Hence, exiting may mean leaving apart of the researcher’s new identity with theorganization, which may give rise to a potentialtension between strangeness and overidentifi-cation with the research setting and stimulate aperiod of reflection (Coffey, 1999). In the transla-tion process between the worlds of practitionersand researchers, the latter are bound to altertheir identities (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995; Gulati,2007; Van de Ven, 2007). Engagement in the fieldcan enable researchers to understand them-selves, sometimes in surprising ways. Towardthe end of fieldwork, researchers have fre-quently undergone multiple processes of (re)es-tablishing and (re)negotiating their identities.

Upon exiting the researcher has often suc-cessfully communicated different sides of her/his multiple identities. Maines et al. (1980) tellthe story of an ethnographer who introducedhimself as a reporter in order to study a wres-tling community. Even though research partici-pants expected him to never leave the field, hegradually withdrew by falling back on differ-ent roles:

Involved in a set of multiple roles—those of soci-ologist, reporter, and friend—I was identified assomeone who would never leave. . . . In the earlyphases of the disengagement process, I receivedmail and telephone calls from the promoter’s of-fice on weekly basis. I tried to be evasive bystalling in my response, but feeling guilt pangs, Ivisited the promotional office and continued mynonresearch tasks as usual. . . . Finally, it wasonly after I openly stated that my research writ-ing had priority that my relationships with thepeople in the wrestling office became better un-derstood (1980: 269).

Similar processes take place in relation to re-search participants. While some of them mayremain strangers and perceive themselves pri-marily as providers of data, others undergo se-rious identity changes, turning into active par-ticipants in the research journey. They take theopportunity to express themselves, enact theirown roles, follow their agendas, and facilitate orchallenge the researcher’s identity (Clark, 2010).They often express strong emotions when theresearcher leaves the field. In this way the re-searcher’s changing identity may mirror iden-tity changes of participants. Pitts and Miller-Day (2007) showed that researcher-participantrelationships indicate a trend of relational es-calation and a flow through the phases of“other-orientation,” “self-in-relation-to-other,”“self-and-other linking,” “interpersonal connec-tion,” and “partnership.” The partnership phaseis marked by high levels of open self-disclosureand a focus on the personal rather than profes-sional relationship. Of course, not all researchrelations become partnerships. Clark (2010) hasargued that participants may be motivated toengage in a study because of subjective or ther-apeutic interest, enjoyment, or curiosity. AsHenry suggests, “The field is a richer site ifparticipants are conceptualized as agents,rather than purely as victims of the researchprocess” (2003: 239).

If in our framework exiting is understood asoccurring in a complex web of relationships be-


tween researchers and research participants,the following important questions arise: Given aparticular type of exit, how does it affect therelationships with research participants, andwhat is its potential for theorizing? To answerthese questions we develop a typology of exit-ing and theorizing.

EXITING AND THEORIZING: A TYPOLOGY

We present our typology of exiting and theo-rizing in a two-by-two matrix in Figure 2. Thex-axis relates to the impact of exiting on researchrelationships and summarizes our insights fromethnography and business marketing by under-lining the centrality of relationships’ embedded-ness. The y-axis captures the impact of exitingon theorizing and emphasizes the importance ofthe dual state of connect and disconnect forsuccessful theorizing. Each cell of the matrixproduces a scenario that consists of a particu-lar exit type leading to a specific theorizingapproach.

Relationships in the field (x-axis) may be sus-tained upon exiting, particularly if they arecharacterized by high connectivity, flexibility,and “emotional carrying capacity” (Dutton &Dukerich, 2006: 25). Well-functioning research re-lationships nourish an open exchange of ideas,facilitate the sharing of research findings, andwithstand negative emotions, and they arelikely to produce a favorable setting for exiting.In sustained exits positive relationship energyis maintained, providing the researcher with theopportunity to reenter the field at a later stage ifneeded.

As shown in Figure 2, the opposite of sus-tained relationships are disruptive ones. The re-searcher may be asked by the studied organiza-tion to leave or may simply be pulled home byher/his institution for a number of reasons.Sometimes the field may change dramaticallyor disappear altogether (Hammersley & Atkin-son, 1995) because of a crisis that may lead tounexpected and premature leaving. This type ofexit is typically unpredictable and, thus, notsynchronized with other parties. The field mayalso disintegrate naturally. In such situationsfield relationships may fade away over a longerperiod of time rather than break up suddenly.Sometimes research participants do not acceptthe researcher’s departure, leading to a disrup-tive exit. A clear difference between sustainedand disruptive exits is that in the latter the doorto reentry to the field is closed. As our examplesof exit types will illustrate, the nature of earlierfield relationships—whether collaborative orarm’s-length—is likely to shape the kind of exitthe researcher is able or willing to undertake.

The y-axis in Figure 2 shifts attention to thepotential for theorizing upon exiting. The keyquestion here is whether the researcher is ableto mentally and emotionally distance her/himself from the field upon exiting in order toengage in theorizing. Such exits are character-ized by successful mental and emotional dis-tancing from the field (Mintzberg, 2005), a re-lease that affords the researcher the mentalspace necessary to engage in reflection and the-orizing. Exiting offers an opportunity to reachclosure and move on, emotionally as well asintellectually. In the opposite situation depicted

FIGURE 2Exit Types Leading to Four Theorizing Approaches

SustainedDisruptive

Minorpotential

Majorpotential

Impact of exit on research relationships

Impact of exiton theorizing

1. Anticipated exit Conventional

theorizing

2. Revelatory exit Paradoxical

theorizing

3. Hostage exit One-sided theorizing

4. Black hole exit Blind alley

theorizing


in Figure 2, the researcher maintains mentaland emotional proximity to the research fielddespite having physically exited from it. If over-embedded in the field, the researcher may be-come obsessed by the relationships she/he hasdeveloped and experience relational stressupon exiting. This prevents the researcher frommental and emotional disengagement and de-nies her/him space for critical reflection and the-orizing. The researcher may become a captive ofthe field, persuaded and impressed by the re-search participants’ reasoning and intentions.Depending on the researcher’s epistemologicalposition, such a political stand in the field mayalso be aspired to in order to give voice to mar-ginalized and silenced research participants.

The matrix in Figure 2 outlines four differentscenarios of exiting and theorizing: (1) antici-pated exit leading to conventional theorizing, (2)revelatory exit resulting in paradoxical theoriz-ing, (3) hostage exit producing one-sided theo-rizing, and (4) black hole exit leading to blindalley theorizing. In what follows we illustrateeach exit type with examples from selected pub-lished work and associate it with a particularapproach to theorizing. We show that the poten-tial for and practices of theorizing are differentdepending on both the researcher and externalcontingencies. This typology helps researchersin two ways: first, they may reflect in a moresystematic way on how exiting influences theo-rizing, thus reaping all benefits and avoidingpotential problems; second, if the exit process isreported, readers have the chance to take it intoconsideration when evaluating the study.

Scenario 1: Anticipated Exit Leading toConventional Theorizing

In this scenario (upper right corner of Figure 2)the researcher cultivates sustained relation-ships with research participants and is able tosuccessfully disconnect, mentally and emotion-ally, from the field. Exiting in this scenario isoften anticipated and taken for granted andtherefore not problematized. Both parties expectthe relationship to terminate at a certain pointin time and are prepared to ensure a productiveending; the timing of exit is typically synchro-nized between the parties, and participants of-ten help the researcher to disengage. We be-lieve that most exits in fieldwork, if accounted

for and explained in published work, would fallinto this category.

Conventional theorizing as an outcome of ananticipated exit may involve joint reflection andanalysis through an ongoing dialogue with re-search participants (Alvesson & Sköldberg,2009). Such an exchange with research partici-pants goes beyond the data verification recom-mended in many methodological textbooks andmay contribute to both theoretical rigor andpractical relevance in terms of organizationallearning and generation of new knowledge (Gu-lati, 2007). Conventional theorizing establishescontinuity between theory and practice. The re-searcher begins with an established theoryand finds support for existing concepts, an ap-proach that is less paradigm challenging thanother approaches to theorizing (Kantor, 1945).Sandberg and Tsoukas (2011) have suggestedthat the researcher may prompt practitioners totemporarily step back from their organizationalpractices, engage them in a reflection of howthey practice, and help them to create new waysof performing and enacting their practice. Thiscan be achieved if participants alongside theresearcher disengage from their own separateworlds and create a joint mental space in orderto reach a mutual understanding and interpre-tation of findings (Coffey, 1999).

Emotions associated with exiting are impor-tant because researchers’ own feelings as wellas those of research participants can be treatedas data, enabling researchers to move beyondwhat they presumed they already knew (Klein-man & Copp, 1993). After intensive and pro-tracted fieldwork, ending relationships with in-dividuals, albeit anticipated, may result infeelings of separation and loss (Baumeister &Leary, 1995; Dutton & Heaphy, 2003). In such sit-uations research participants are no longer“just” participants but rather “very real, warmand personable human beings” (Snow, 1980:112). From the participants’ perspective, the re-searcher may have been considered a reliableteam member, or someone interested in individ-uals’ and the organization’s situation. For them,exiting means losing a resource and a loyallistener (Ortiz, 2004). The researcher’s feelings ofsadness at the passing of time and the rupturingof relationships are often tempered by the reliefof going home, returning relatively unscathed toa familiar and secure world.


Sustained relationships pave the way for asubsequent reentry to the field. Maines et al.(1980) illustrated how the reentry of an ethnog-rapher in the postdoctoral community was easyowing to the common understanding and strongrelationships with the research participants. In-deed, a “very congenial and unproblematic re-acquaintance process eventuated because I wasstudying my ‘own kind.’ They understood that Ihad little to hide, and cooperated most gener-ously” (Maines et al., 1980: 267). Referring to astudy in a newsroom, Altheide explained howsustained relationships, multiple exits, and re-entries allowed him to reflect on his researchidentity and theorize:

I was able to gain more detail and a fuller per-spective on my place in the newsroom and themembers’ definitions of me. Each time this wasdone, more insight was gained, especially a ca-pacity to reflect on my role in the data-generatingand collecting aspect of the study. In this sense,these leave-takings made important substantivecontributions (1980: 310).

Anticipated exits are, however, not exempt fromproblems. Dutton and Dukerich (2006) reported onthe relational challenges that emerged in the con-text of attempting to publish an academic paperafter exiting. According to some organizationalmembers, the researchers did not present the or-ganization in the “best light,” which tends to be aconcern particularly for public relations in largeorganizations. Under such circumstances emo-tional carrying capacity and the support offeredby formal and informal gatekeepers play a keyrole in reducing relational stress and getting aca-demic research approved for publication. The mo-ment of having the research findings approved bythe gatekeepers tends to be the ultimate test of theresearch relationships’ sustainability afterexiting.

Scenario 2: Revelatory Exit Resulting inParadoxical Theorizing

In a disruptive, revelatory exit the researcherhas successfully disconnected mentally andemotionally from the field, but the relationshipswith research participants have been disrupted.Even so, a disruptive exit may be fruitful fortheorizing and produce novel paradigm-chal-lenging insights (see Van de Ven & Johnson,2006), which seems counterintuitive. This is be-cause a disruption may assist the researcher to

disconnect physically, mentally, and emotion-ally and to reassess her/his theoretical expecta-tions and fundamental approaches to the studygenerated during fieldwork (Mintzberg, 2005).

Meyer and Altenborg (2008) offer an illustra-tive example from management research. Theyintended to investigate a successful cross-border merger but, because of a dramaticchange in the field, their research focus shifted,and they produced a rare study of a failedmerger. The crisis itself provided an opportunityto engage in paradoxical theorizing (Poole &Van de Ven, 1989) and to generate findings thatwere in sharp contrast with conventionalmerger and acquisition literature. The disrup-tion brought about a new beginning in theoriz-ing rather than closure.

Such a disruption in the field may stimulate arevelatory “eureka” moment and trigger a learn-ing process that puts researchers clearly out oftheir comfort zone. It can offer a wonderful oppor-tunity to apply abductive logic to theorizing (Bar-tunek, Rynes, & Ireland, 2006; Dubois & Gadde,2002; Locke et al., 2008). Positive doubt affords usthe potential to see “profoundly, imaginatively,unconventionally into phenomena we thought weunderstood” (Mintzberg, 2005: 361).

Paradoxical theorizing invites researchers toengage with their own negative feelings (Klein-man & Copp, 1993) or with research participants’adverse attitudes or expressions. Instead of ignor-ing them, engaging with negative feelings maylead us to recognize “situations of non-obvious-ness” (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011: 351)—that“something is missing or is not quite right” (Lockeet al., 2008: 910). To be able to turn a disruptive exitinto a positive resource for theorizing, the re-searcher needs to be open to unexpected reactionsand tolerate incongruities, ambiguity, and myster-ies (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007). In her ethno-graphic study of sex offenders in a probation hos-tel, Reeves reflects on unpleasant feelings whenthe moment of exiting was approaching:

I had planned the end (when, how and why), butas the fieldwork progressed I gradually becameaware that my relationships in the hostel werechanging and this heralded my departure. . . .There were three members (of a staff of 21) whoseattitudes changed apparently because they weresuspicious and mistrustful of my motivations inthe research. . . . On reflection, this concern wasattributable to external factors; a Home Officeinspection was imminent (2010: 325–326).


Thus, as mentioned earlier, negative emotionalstates may encourage the activation of counterfac-tual thoughts (Roese, 1997), which is at the heart ofparadoxical theorizing. In sudden and disruptiveexits there is no time or space to involve researchparticipants in joint reflection and cocreation ofinsights. Reeves’ (2010) conscious decision not tokeep in touch with the probation hostel revealednew relational dynamics between the members ofthe studied community:

Residents, on the other hand, wanted to continuerelationships with someone [the researcher] theysaid they felt they could talk to without having alltheir conversations reported back to manage-ment or in fear that they would let somethingprivate slip that would place them at risk in thehostel. It was this more than anything else thataffected my theorizing about the data (Reeves,personal communication).

Scenario 3: Hostage Exit ProducingOne-Sided Theorizing

In this scenario the researcher sustains closerelationships with informants in the field butremains too connected to them, both mentallyand emotionally. The researcher may be in-volved in political power plays within the orga-nization, and in such situations it becomes in-creasingly difficult to reflect on the influence offield relationships on theorizing. We use theterm one-sided theorizing to refer to the re-searcher’s conscious attempt to give voice tocertain groups in the organization or to take oneparty’s side in reporting.

Both Letkemann (1980) and Ortiz (2004) becameoverinvolved in the field and found it very diffi-cult to disengage from it. In Unruh’s (1979, 1980)terms they both were “insiders” rather than“strangers,” “tourists,” or “regulars” in the field.An insider who has become deeply absorbed inthe world of the research subjects—and possiblyeven adjusted her/his own identity to fit the re-search setting—has “gone native” (Paul, 1953:435). This “overrapport” (Miller, 1952) tends todestroy the delicate balance between externaland internal considerations by allowing the lat-ter to predominate (see also Shaffir & Stebbins,1991). Reflecting on his three-year-long study ofthe community of outlaw bikers, Wolf describedthe risk of becoming too close to the researchparticipants: “I had been a brother through goodtimes and bad, thick and thin; but to distancemyself from the Rebels by announcing a study

done for outsiders of a way of life I had sharedwith them against the world seemed nothingshort of betrayal” (1991: 218).

Wolf’s experience shows how hostages mayface major difficulties in theorizing and trans-forming their rich accounts into stylized analy-ses. Macdonald and Hellgren (2004) associatedthe hostage syndrome with mental imprison-ment in relationships that were built duringfieldwork. Similar to when hostages identifywith their capturers, researchers may come to re-late so closely with participants that one of theirprimary concerns becomes how to generatefindings that please the research participants.Indeed, researchers’ expectations of rapport andidentification with research participants mayeasily become self-serving, spur the writing of asympathetic research report, and bias theorizingin unknown ways. Researchers may also believethat, because of good rapport, their researchparticipants are frank and candid. Sometimes,however, researchers notice that they are beingtold half-truths or lies by the participants inorder to present an image they wished to portray(Reeves, 2010), and that, too, is likely to hindertheorizing.

Scenario 4: Black Hole Exit Leading to BlindAlley Theorizing

Black hole exit refers to disruption of relation-ships with participants, together with the termina-tion of the field study and often the entire researchproject. Crisis-ridden research situations, whichcarry an element of danger or chaos, exemplify aresearch setting that often enforces black hole ex-its from fieldwork. Belousov et al. provide a rare,documented account of a study that was broughtinto an abrupt end by the murder of one of theirkey research gatekeepers:

The death of Captain Sinelnikov on 14 May hadimmediate adverse repercussions on the field-work, and this continued until our work came toan end in October 2003. Despite continuing sup-port from the Deputy Captain of the Port, ourrelations with our target group of respondentsunderwent a noticeable change. Where initiallywe experienced a sense of active interest fromrespondents, we now found outright annoyance,which could barely be contained. Our presencewas now barely tolerated, and to be avoided atall costs (2007: 164).

In such contexts theorizing may also be ob-structed by very real physical threats posed to


fieldworkers. Also, in less dangerous yet sensi-tive crisis situations (e.g., hostile takeovers orcorporate scandals), along with the rapidlychanging positions of research gatekeepers andrespondents, the door may suddenly be closed tothe researcher.

We view the example described above as prob-lematic for theorizing because the researcher maygive up attempts to theorize altogether, becomingunwilling or unable to appreciate the theoreticalvalue of the insights gained in the field owing tothe disruptive exit. Negative experiences tend notto be mentioned, bolstering the widespread con-viction that they “stand aloof from the actual re-search process and continue to be judged as un-fortunate mishaps,” and so the researcher “tend[s]to conceal shameful or embarrassing experi-ences” (Grisar-Kassé, 2004: 144). Indeed, in cases ofproblematic exits, such revelations would proba-bly only increase editors’, reviewers’, and readers’doubts about the research process and the find-ings at hand.

At the same time, Locke et al. have suggestedthat blind alleys are part and parcel of the discov-ery process and that they are “useful in gaininginsight why one avenue may not be promising”(2008: 914). This is also one potential way to transitfrom the black hole exit to more favorable scenar-ios. The majority of studies with disruptive exitsmay, however, end up in a black hole, never lead-ing to written accounts or publications. We wouldargue that there is no need for researchers to treatsuch exits as a “closet activity” (Sutton, 1997);rather, the research community can learn fromsuch experiences, as we discuss next.

WRITING ABOUT EXITING FIELDWORK INSCHOLARLY PUBLICATIONS

Our discussion thus far raises the question,“When should exit not be concealed but insteadbe discussed in print?” There are certainly var-ious reasons why writing about exiting field-work is desirable. Here we focus on two that wefind particularly important.

Clarity of Methods and Emotionally Rich Style

We argue that explaining and reflecting on aparticular exit type (rather than merely describ-ing it) is directly relevant to crafting a sound,high-quality methodological discussion. In fact,in some cases not discussing exit may under-

specify methodology. Good empirical researchis methodologically precise, and discussing exitcontributes to this precision. Gephart warns that“if it is unclear to the reader how research wasundertaken, it may be difficult to connect claimsin the paper . . . to the data presented” (2004: 458).In order to gain the trust of the audience, theresearcher needs to provide rich details abouthow important decisions were made in the re-search process. This ultimately includes exiting,or, at least, there is no logical reason to excludeit from such discussions. Only by analyzing howwe left do we allow the audience to exit with us,because “leaving implies that we were there inthe first place” (Coffey, 1999: 109). At other times,when the researcher does not fully leave thefield mentally and emotionally, it becomes im-possible to discuss exiting.

Particularly in fieldwork that is conducted forthe purposes of inquiry from the inside, it isimportant to bring the reader close to the empir-ical setting where the researcher has been andthereby allow the researcher’s voice to be heard(Bansal & Corley, 2011). Reflexivity about thisrole, defined as “the inclusion of the observer inthe subject matter itself” (McCall, 2006: 3), is akey characteristic of most of this type of field-work. Golden-Biddle and Locke (2007) go evenfurther by viewing the write-up and representa-tion of the study as a collective endeavor amongresearchers, readers, and reviewers. Whilehighly specialized readers may be interested inthe technicality of the arguments and the levelof sophistication of theory development andmethodological execution, collegial and partic-ularly general readers appreciate details thatmake them trust the author (see Van Maanen etal., 2007, on the distinction between thesegroups of readers). Bringing general readers tothe field and inviting them along as the re-searcher exits increases the transparency, au-thenticity, trustworthiness, and resonance ofpublished theories. At the end of the day, it isthe readers who make a theory live or die. Whilediscussing exiting is impossible without reflex-ivity, we argue that writing about it goes beyondmere reflection; it is about analyzing data, thefield, and fieldwork, which means shaping thedata and the relationships in the field. Thus, wedo not advocate mere descriptions of exiting butanalytic discussions of it.

Published theories will attract more attentionand trust if authors reflexively work their way


through the messy theoretical and methodologicalwaters. Writing about how they exit can makewriting more believable and, hence, also moreauthoritative. To be clear, reporting black holeexits is desirable, too, when they serve as“thought trials” (Weick, 1989: 522) that advance theauthors’ theorizing ability by illuminating thecomplexities and problems associated with field-work. Explicit descriptions about deadends arecrucial for removing barriers to theorizing in fu-ture research endeavors and for increasing field-workers’ intellectual stimulation. What is impor-tant is that an examination of exiting is not an aimin itself but that it provides a new angle totheorizing.

While it has become increasingly fashionablefor researchers to personalize their accounts offieldwork, as our literature review has docu-mented, there has been little systematic atten-tion to reflecting on fieldwork experiences andemotions during and upon the completion offieldwork. Research methods texts remain silenton the ways in which fieldwork affects us andour theorizing and how we affect the field (Cof-fey, 1999). This often transpires in a sterile writ-ing style deprived of feelings and emotions, of-ten articulated through a neutral and objectivelanguage of observation. The consequence isless passionate and less rich accounts of field-work that lead us to “safely quarantine the con-fessional from the substantive story” (Kleinman& Copp, 1993: 17), resulting in less wise, lesscreative, and less appealing theories. Moreover,such an emotionally poor style distances thetheorizing process as well as its outcomes fromthe field and research participants. “When . . .[research subjects] find it next to impossible tosee themselves in the reports of the projects inwhich they have participated, they are renderedineffective as critics of the accuracy of the re-search” (Shaffir & Stebbins, 1991: 5). Thus, ananalytic discussion of exiting would contributeto an emotionally richer writing style.

Bridging the Gap Between the Worlds ofAcademia and Practice

Writing about exiting can help reduce the dis-tance between academics and business practi-tioners. Bridging this gap builds on the re-searcher’s interpretive competence, includingboth perspective making and perspective taking(Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). Such “translating”

(Mohrman, Gibson, & Mohrman, 2001) and “bilin-gual interpreting” (Gulati, 2007) may help toclarify findings and communicate them to theresearch participants. More important, however,the relational framework on exiting that we pro-pose clearly views research participants as re-flexive coresearchers whose motivations maywell be at odds with those of the researcher.Instead of suppressing or ignoring these differ-ences, they can and should be embraced as anavenue for fruitful theorizing.

What Wright (2011) refers to as “committed-to-participants-research” does not appear to bewidely practiced, for several reasons. In man-agement and organization studies we more of-ten than not talk and write about doing researchon rather than with individuals, groups, and or-ganizations. Wright and Wright (1999) mentionthe relevance of what we study, the way westudy what we study, and who really benefitsfrom our research as some of the reasons whythis is the case. They argue that all too often ourprojects are predicated on “publish or perish”issues, and, as a consequence, “participantshave become the proverbial ‘invisible’ men andwomen of organizational research” (Wright &Wright, 1999: 1110).

As mentioned earlier, exit is the stage of theresearch process when most expectations to-ward the researcher become particularly ex-plicit and tangible. Yet one would believe thatbecause of the wide gulf between the research-ers’ and practitioners’ world views, there shouldbe more conflicts and disagreements in thefield. Bearing in mind that how the researcherexits the field can, to a great extent, determinewhether the fieldwork can lead to interesting orempty theorizing, should not we be worried thatso few disruptive and sudden exits get reportedin management research?

CONCLUSION: LET THE CONVERSATIONTAKE OFF

We advocate in this article that exiting fromthe field is a critical part of high-quality fieldresearch and theorizing, a link that has not beenovertly acknowledged previously. Our system-atic review of the methodological literature inboth management and organization researchand the broader social sciences reveals that notmuch at all is being written about exiting thefield. Researchers may simply be unaware of


the option and value of analyzing exit in rela-tion to their theorizing efforts. Fieldworkersalso tend to believe that “getting in” is fartougher than “getting out.” Sometimes research-ers treat exiting as a closet activity (Sutton,1997), particularly if it has been disruptive andnegative. As mentioned earlier, it is not uncom-mon to try to conceal shameful and embarrass-ing field experiences rather than reflect on themin writing (Grisar-Kassé, 2004). Finally, authorguidelines in academic journals typically ad-vise that method sections be crisp and orderlyand only deal with data collection and analysis.Whatever the reasons, it is not only manage-ment and organization field researchers, butalso social scientists in general, who are con-spicuously silent about exit-related matters.

Therefore, we have aimed here to initiate along-delayed conversation with the purpose ofimproving our collective understanding andself-consciousness of exiting and refining thequality of fieldwork and theorizing, as well asthe way exiting is articulated in published re-search. Inspired by logic, ideas, and vocabularyfrom ethnography and business marketing liter-ature, we have aspired to understand exitingwith the help of a relational framework. Ourcontribution lies in challenging and extendingthe literature on the relational foundation of re-search (Bartunek, 2007; Dutton & Dukerich, 2006;Gulati, 2007) by shifting attention toward theexit phase of the research journey. We haveidentified different types of exit and exploredtheir effects on theorizing. Counterintuitively, adisruptive exit may be particularly fertile fortheorizing because it may trigger revelatory,even paradigm-challenging, insights. The dis-continuity caused upon exiting may lead us tocontest commonly held assumptions within acommunity and affirm an unanticipated alterna-tive (Davis, 1971; Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006).The typology of exits we have outlined helpsspecify some of the contingencies that are likelyto influence the way one exits fieldwork. Identi-fying these contingencies and anticipating thepossible implications of our actions while exit-ing lead to better informed choices. In this re-gard, we make an early attempt to show thatexiting from fieldwork has significant effects ontheorizing.

We suggest that exiting fieldwork, like theo-rizing, can be viewed as a craft that can belearned (Daft, 1983). Field researchers do engage

in exiting all the time. They can reflect and learnfrom their exit experiences. They should analyzetheir own exits and those of their peers in orderto anticipate desirable changes and improve fu-ture ones. Such learning is not easy and unprob-lematic; it contains a high portion of tacit knowl-edge, and it requires reflexivity, rethinkinganew, and unlearning some current practices.

The relational framework that we propose canbe further enriched by considering not onlymental and emotional aspects of exiting butalso ethical ones. There are serious ethical is-sues and potentially ethically difficult momentsinvolved in exiting the field. We see value instudying those, particularly, for example,through the lens of feminist research, which em-phasizes explicitly the researcher’s responsibil-ity for research participants in the studied orga-nization. For instance, how would the veryprocess of exiting and the findings of the studyinfluence the ones being studied? Wright andWright (1999), Reeves (2010), and Wright (2011)have discussed such issues with regard to therelationships between researchers and researchparticipants while in the field, and we see po-tential in focusing this discussion on exitingfieldwork in the overall effort to improve theo-rizing efforts and outcomes. Discussions of howwe exit will certainly allow for more scrutiny ofthe integrity of the research we conduct.

We have referred to fieldwork in general,without specifying data collection tech-nique(s)—for example, interviewing, shadowingorganizational members, observing partici-pants, and conducting surveys or field experi-ments. While we would argue that none of theseis immune to the challenges of exiting the field,there might be important differences betweenthem. Some exits may be more feasible or ap-propriate than others when engaging with oneor the other of the above methods. While wehave touched on the question of exit consider-ations in relation to differing epistemologicalpreferences, a more detailed discussion of thislink would provide useful insights. We have notaddressed the characteristics of individual re-searchers, research participants, or research in-stitutes, such as reputation, seniority, power,and material resources, and their influence onexiting. Earlier research showed that high sta-tus prevents the hazard of dissolving businessrelationships (Baker, Faulkner, & Fisher, 1998;Jensen, 2006). This could increase the risk of


overidentification with research participantsand the probability of hostage exits, with certainconsequences for the process and outcomes oftheorizing.

We have referred to and analyzed exiting as aprocess. Although we analyzed activities takingplace while exiting (connecting and disconnect-ing, reflecting and self-learning, dealing withemotions, and changing identities), we did notexplicate the multiple stages of exiting. Market-ing researchers Halinen and Tähtinen (2002)point out that business relationship ending goesthrough the stages of assessment, decision mak-ing, dyadic communication, disengagement,and aftermath. Similarly, exiting fieldwork is amultistage process, and looking deeper intothese stages and how they influence and shapeeach other is an exercise worth conducting. Crit-ical for theorizing, in our view, are dyadic com-munication, disengagement, and aftermath—where the interaction between the two partiesreduces to nil. The dyadic stage is a turningpoint because it puts the future of the relation-ship at stake (Alajoutsijärvi et al., 1998). At thispoint the parties still have the two strategic op-tions of voice and exit (Hirschman, 1970), andthose can have very different implications fortheorizing.

In order to enrich the conversation on exitingfieldwork, we see potential in having sociolo-gists and social psychologists join the discus-sion. Sociologists can provide valuable insightsinto institutional, interpersonal, or intraper-sonal factors that place pressure on and act asbarriers to fieldwork relationships, or as “extra-neous precipitants of disengagement” (Snow,1980: 106). Researchers should not underesti-mate the constraints stemming from their ownuniversities, funding bodies, institutional spon-sors, and publishers when considering exit,since these can have a substantial influence onscholarly work in general and theorizing in par-ticular. Social psychology enables further ap-preciation of the role of researchers’ relationalidentities and relational identification (Sluss &Ashforth, 2007) with research participants inthe field.

We also encourage the inclusion of chapterson exit in future methodology textbooks for stu-dents and researchers in management and or-ganization. The relational framework on exiting,we hope, can serve as a discussion point in morespecialized in-the-field textbooks. Similar text-

books in sociology and social anthropology (e.g.,Atkinson, Coffey, Delamont, Lofland, & Lofland,2001; Brewer, 2000; Burgess, 1994; Hammersley &Atkinson, 1995) provide a source of inspiration inthis respect. We believe that scholars will ben-efit from reflecting on the phenomenon of exit-ing and from developing their own exit prac-tices, which, in turn, can contribute to the healthof fieldwork and the quality of theorizing inmanagement and organization studies.

The conversation we initiate is not only rele-vant and interesting but also timely. Universi-ties and business schools around the world areprogressively being subjected to marketization(Styhre & Lind, 2010; Wedlin, 2008), and bridgingthe gap between academia and business is in-creasingly being placed on the agenda (Barnett,2000; O’Hara, 2007). Discourses and labels referto academic capitalism (Slaughter & Leslie,1997), university entrepreneurship (Rothaermel,Agung, & Jiang, 2007), the entrepreneurial uni-versity (Clark, 1998), and the university as a mul-tinational corporation (Engwall, 2008). Currently,a culture of “short-termism” promotes the oppor-tunistic pursuit of interests and threatens long-term commitments to fieldwork (Brose, 2004).These trends pose a serious challenge to therelational foundation of research (Dutton &Dukerich, 2006) and ultimately invite us to thinkmore seriously about how we exit the field andhow that influences the process and outcomes ofour theorizing. Therefore, it is time to break thesilence and let an academic conversation aboutexiting take off.

EPILOGUE

Researchers are players in the exciting worldof fieldwork, with numerous entrances and ex-its. As William Shakespeare wrote in As YouLike It:

All the world’s a stage,And all the men and women merely players;They have their exits and their entrances;And one man in his time plays many parts,His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms.And then the whining school-boy, with his

satchelAnd shining morning face, creeping like snailUnwillingly to school. And then the lover,Sighing like furnace, with a woeful balladMade to his mistress’ eyebrow.Then a soldier, . . .


In most plays the actor makes a grand en-trance, but exits are rather mundane—the nota-tion in the script reading “exit stage left.” Aswe have argued, exits can be grand and dra-matic—at times, in a play, the death of theplayer! But the surreptitious exit leaves onethinking that the character was but a bit playerin the whole play. . . .

REFERENCES

Agndal, H., & Axelsson, B. 2002. Internationalization of thefirm: The influence of relationship sediments. In H. Hå-kansson & V. Havila (Eds.), Critical perspectives on in-ternationalization: 437–456. Amsterdam: Pergamon.

Alajoutsijärvi, K., Möller, K., & Tähtinen, J. 2000. Beautifulexit: How to leave your business partner. European Jour-nal of Marketing, 34: 1270–1289.

Alfred, R. 2008. Ethical and political issues in contemporaryresearch relationships. Sociology, 42: 887–903.

Altheide, D. 1980. Leaving the newsroom. In W. B. Shaffir,R. A. Stebbins, & A. Turowetz (Eds.), Fieldwork experi-ence: Qualitative approaches to social research: 301–310.New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. 2007. Constructing mystery:Empirical matters in theory development. Academy ofManagement Review, 32: 1265–1281.

Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. 2009. Reflective methodology.New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. 1978. Organizational learning: Atheory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., & Lofland, L.(Eds.). 2001. Handbook of ethnography. London: Sage.

Baker, W. E., Faulkner, R. R., & Fisher, G. A. 1998. Hazards ofthe market: The continuity and dissolution of interorga-nizational market relationships. American SociologicalReview, 63: 147–177.

Bansal, P., & Corley, K. 2011. From the editors: The coming ofage for qualitative research: Embracing the diversity ofqualitative methods. Academy of Management Journal,54: 233–237.

Barnett, R. 2000. University knowledge in an age of super-complexity. Higher Education, 40: 409–422.

Barney, J. B. 2005. Where does inequality come from? Thepersonal and intellectual roots of resource-based the-ory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds inmanagement: The process of theory development: 280–303. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bartunek, J. M. 2007. Academic-practitioner collaborationneed not require joint or relevant research: Toward arelational scholarship of integration. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 50: 1323–1333.

Bartunek, J. M., Rynes, S. L., & Ireland, R. D. 2006. What makesmanagement research interesting, and why does it mat-ter? Academy of Management Journal, 49: 9–15.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. 1995. The need to belong:Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamentalhuman motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497–529.

Baxter, L. A. 1985. Accomplishing relationship disengage-ment. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understandingpersonal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach:243–266. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Bedeian, A. G. 2004. The gift of professional maturity. Acad-emy of Management Learning & Education, 3: 92–98.

Belousov, K., Horlick-Jones, T., Bloor, M., Gilinskiy, Y., Gol-bert, V., Kostikovsky, Y., Levi, M., & Pentsov, D. 2007. Anyport in a storm: Fieldwork difficulties in dangerous andcrisis-ridden settings. Qualitative Research, 7: 155–175.

Boisot, M., & McKelvey, B. 2010. Integrating modernist andpostmodernist perspectives on organizations: A com-plexity science bridge. Academy of Management Re-view, 35: 415–433.

Boland, R. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. 1995. Perspective taking andperspective making in communities of knowing. Orga-nization Science, 6: 350–372.

Brewer, J. D. 2000. Ethnography. Buckingham, UK: Open Uni-versity Press.

Brose, H.-G. 2004. An introduction towards a culture of non-simultaneity. Time and Society, 13: 5–26.

Buchanan, D., Boddy, D., & McCalman, J. 1988. Getting in,getting on, getting out and getting back. In A. Bryman(Ed.), Doing research in organizations: 53–67. London:Routledge.

Burgess, R. G. 1994. In the field: An introduction to fieldresearch. London: Unwin Hyman.

Calás, M. B., & Smircich, L. 1999. Past postmodernism? Re-flections and tentative directions. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 24: 649–671.

Chapman, M. 1997. Social anthropology, business studies,and cultural issues. International Studies of Manage-ment & Organization, 26(4): 3–29.

Christensen, C. M., & Carlile, P. R. 2009. Course research:Using the case method to build and teach managementtheory. Academy of Management Learning & Education,8: 240–251.

Clark, B. R. 1998. Creating entrepreneurial universities. Ox-ford: Pergamon.

Clark, T. 2010. On “being researched”: Why do people en-gage with qualitative research? Qualitative Research,10: 399–419.

Coffey, A. 1999. The ethnographic self: Fieldwork and therepresentation of identity. London: Sage.

Cunliffe, A. L. 2010. Retelling tales of the field in search oforganizational ethnography 20 years on. OrganizationResearch Methods, 13: 224–239.

Czarniawska, B. 1998. Positioning in the field, or the other asmyself. In B. Czarniawska (Ed.), A narrative approach toorganization studies. Qualitative research methods se-ries, 43: 33–49. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Daft, R. L. 1983. Learning the craft of organizational research.Academy of Management Review, 8: 539–546.


Davis, M. S. 1971. That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenol-ogy of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology.Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1: 309–344.

Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. 2002. Systematic combining: Anabductive approach to case research. Journal of Busi-ness Research, 55: 553–560.

Duck, S. 1982. A topography of relationship disengagementand dissolution. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships.Volume 4: Dissolving personal relationships: 1–30. Lon-don: Academic Press.

Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. 2006. The relational founda-tion of research: An underappreciated dimension ofinteresting research. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 49: 21–26.

Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. 2003. The power of high qualityconnections. In K. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn(Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: 263–278. SanFrancisco: Berrett-Koeler.

Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. 1987. Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51: 11–27.

Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. 2007. Methodological fitin management field research. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 32: 1155–1179.

Engwall, L. 2008. The university: A multinational corpora-tion? In L. Engwall & D. Weaire (Eds.), The university inthe market: 9–21. London: Portland Press.

Evered, R., & Louis, M. R. 1981. Alternative perspectives in theorganizational sciences: “Inquiry from the inside” and“inquiry from the outside.” Academy of ManagementReview, 6: 385–395.

Finlay, L. 2002. “Outing” the researcher: The provenance,process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative HealthResearch, 12: 531–545.

Folger, R., & Turillo, C. J. 1999. Theorizing as the thickness ofthin abstraction. Academy of Management Review, 24:742–758.

Gephart, R. P. 2004. From the editors: Qualitative researchand the Academy of Management Journal. Academy ofManagement Journal, 47: 454–462.

Giller, C., & Matear, S. 2001. The termination of inter-firmrelationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Market-ing, 16: 94–112.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. 1967. The discovery of groundedtheory. Chicago: Aldine.

Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. 2007. Using knowledge inmanagement studies. Journal of Management Inquiry,15: 237–254.

Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure:The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of So-ciology, 91: 481–510.

Grisar-Kassé, K. 2004. The role of negative personal experi-ences in cross-cultural case study research: Failure oropportunity? In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research methods for interna-tional business: 144–161. Cheltenham, UK: Edward El-gar.

Gulati, R. 2007. Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary span-ning: The rigor-relevance debate in management re-search. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 775–782.

Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (Eds.). 1995. Developing relation-ships in business networks. London: Routledge.

Halinen, A., & Tähtinen, J. 2002. A process theory of relation-ship ending. International Journal of Service IndustryManagement, 13: 163–180.

Halinen, A., & Törnroos, J.-A. 1998. The role of embeddednessin the evolution of business networks. ScandinavianJournal of Management, 14: 187–205.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. 1995. Ethnography. London:Routledge.

Havila, V., & Wilkinson, I. 2002. The principle of the conser-vation of relationship energy: Or many kinds of newbeginnings. Industrial Marketing Management, 31: 191–203.

Henry, M. G. 2003. Where are you really from? Representa-tion, identity and power in the fieldwork experiences ofa South Asian diasporic. Qualitative Research, 3: 229–242.

Hertz, R. (Ed.). 1997. Reflexivity and voice. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit, voice and loyalty: Response todecline in firms, organizations and states. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Huff, A. S. 2005. Managerial and organizational cognition:Islands of coherence. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.),Great minds in management: The process of theory de-velopment: 331–354. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jensen, M. 2006. Should we stay or should we go? Account-ability, status anxiety, and client defections. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 51: 97–128.

Kantor, J. R. 1945. Psychology and logic, vol. 1. Bloomington,IN: Principia.

Karnieli-Miller, O., Strier, R., & Pessach, L. 2009. Power rela-tions in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Re-search, 19: 279–289.

Kleinman, S., & Copp, M. A. 1993. Emotions and fieldwork.Qualitative research methods series, vol. 28. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Kleinsasser, A. M. 2000. Researchers, reflexivity, and gooddata: Writing to unlearn. Theory into Practice, 39: 155–162.

Letkemann, P. 1980. Crime as work: Leaving the field. In W. B.Shaffir, R. A. Stebbins, & A. Turowetz (Eds.), Fieldworkexperience: Qualitative approaches to social research:292–301. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., & Feldman, M. S. 2008. Makingdoubt generative: Rethinking the role of doubt in theresearch process. Organization Science, 19: 907–918.

Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. 1995. Analyzing social settings: Aguide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont,CA: Wadsworth.

Macdonald, S., & Hellgren, B. 2004. The interview in interna-tional business research: Problems we would rather not


talk about. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch (Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research methods for interna-tional business: 264–281. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Maines, D. R., Shaffir, W., & Turowetz, A. 1980. Leaving thefield in ethnographic research: Reflections on the en-trance-exit hypothesis. In W. B. Shaffir, R. A. Stebbins, &A. Turowetz (Eds.), Fieldwork experience: Qualitativeapproaches to social research: 261–181. New York: St.Martin’s Press.

McCall, J. 2006. The fieldwork tradition. In D. Hobbs & R.Wright (Eds.), The Sage handbook of fieldwork: 3–22.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Meyer, C., & Altenborg, E. 2008. Incompatible strategies ininternational mergers: The failed merger between Teliaand Telenor. Journal of International Business Studies,39: 508–525.

Miller, S. 1952. The participant-observer and “over-rapport.”American Sociological Review, 17: 97–99.

Mintzberg, H. 2005. Developing theory about theory develop-ment. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds inmanagement: The process of theory development: 355–372. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mohrman, S. A., Gibson, C. B., & Mohrman, A. M. 2001. Doingresearch that is useful to practice: A model and empir-ical exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 44:357–375.

O’Hara, M. 2007. Strangers in a strange land: Knowing, learn-ing and education for the global knowledge society.Futures, 39: 930–941.

Okhuysen, G., & Bonardi, J.-P. 2011. Editors’ comments—Thechallenges of building theory by combining lenses.Academy of Management Review, 36: 6–11.

Orr, K., & Bennett, M. 2009. Reflexivity in the co-production ofacademic-practitioner research. Qualitative Research inOrganizations and Management, 4: 85–102.

Ortiz, S. M. 2004. Leaving the private world of wives of pro-fessional athletes. Journal of Contemporary Ethnogra-phy, 34: 466–487.

Paul, B. D. 1953. Interview techniques and field relations. InA. L. Kroeber (Ed.), Anthropology today: 430–451. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press.

Pitts, M. J., & Miller-Day, M. 2007. Upward turning points andpositive rapport-development across time in researcher-participant relationships. Qualitative Research, 7: 177–201.

Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1989. Using paradox to buildmanagement and organization theories. Academy ofManagement Review, 14: 562–578.

Pressey, A. D., & Mathews, B. P. 2003. Jumped, pushed orforgotten? Approaches to dissolution. Journal of Market-ing Management, 19: 131–155.

Reeves, C. L. 2010. A difficult negotiation: Fieldwork rela-tions with gatekeepers. Qualitative Research, 10: 315–331.

Roemer, E. 2005. Goodbye darling: A real options approachtowards relationship termination. American MarketingAssociation, Summer: 263–269.

Roese, N. J. 1997. Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bul-letin, 121: 133–148.

Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. 2007. Universityentrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Indus-trial and Corporate Change, 16: 691–791.

Ryan, A., & Blois, K. 2010. The emotional dimension of or-ganisational work when cultural sponsorship relation-ships are dissolved. Journal of Marketing Management,26: 612–634.

Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. 2011. Grasping the logic of prac-tice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academyof Management Review, 36: 338–360.

Shaffir, W. B., & Stebbins, R. A. 1991. Experiencing fieldwork:An inside view of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Shaffir, W. B., Stebbins, R. A., & Turowetz, A. (Eds.). 1980.Fieldwork experience: Qualitative approaches to socialresearch. New York: St Martin’s Press.

Shepherd, D. A., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2011. Inductive top-downtheorizing: A source of new theories of organization.Academy of Management Review, 36: 361–380.

Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. 1997. Academic capitalism: Pol-itics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Balti-more: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 2007. Relational identity andidentification: Defining ourselves through work rela-tionships. Academy of Management Review, 32: 9–32.

Snow, D. A. 1980. The disengagement process: A neglectedproblem in participant observation research. Qualita-tive Sociology, 3: 100–122.

Stebbins, R. A. 1991. Do we ever leave the field? Notes onsecondary fieldwork involvements. In W. B. Shaffir &R. A. Stebbins (Eds.), Experiencing fieldwork: An insideview of qualitative research: 248–255. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Styhre, A., & Lind, F. 2010. The softening bureaucracy: Ac-commodating new research opportunities in the entre-preneurial university. Scandinavian Journal of Manage-ment, 26: 107–120.

Sutton, R. I. 1997. The virtues of closet qualitative research.Organization Science, 8: 97–106.

Swedberg, R. 2012. Theorizing in sociology and social sci-ence: Turning to the context of discovery. Theory andSociety, 41: 1–40.

Tähtinen, J., & Halinen, A. 2002. Research on ending ex-change relationships: A categorization, assessment andoutlook. Marketing Theory, 2: 165–188.

Unruh, D. R. 1979. Characteristics and types of participationin social worlds. Symbolic Interaction, 2: 115–130.

Unruh, D. R. 1980. The nature of social worlds. Pacific Soci-ological Review, 23: 271–296.

Valéry, P. 1958. (First published in 1938.) The art of poetry.(Translated by S. Folliot.) New York: Pantheon.

Van de Ven, A. H. 2007. Engaged scholarship: A guide fororganizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.


Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. 2006. Knowledge for theoryand practice. Academy of Management Review, 31: 802–821.

Van Maanen, J. 2010. A song for my supper: More tales fromthe field. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 240–255.

Van Maanen, J., Manning, P. K., & Miller, M. L. 1993. Editors’introduction. In S. Kleinman & M. A. Copp (Eds.), Emo-tions and fieldwork: vii–viii. London: Sage.

Van Maanen, J., Sørensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. 2007. Intro-duction to special topic forum: The interplay betweentheory and method. Academy of Management Review,32: 1145–1154.

Vaughan, D. 1986. Uncoupling: Turning points in intimaterelationships. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wedlin, L. 2008. University marketization: The process andits limits. In L. Engwall & D. Weaire (Eds.), The universityin the market: 143–153. London: Portland Press.

Weick, K. E. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imagi-nation. Academy of Management Review, 14: 516–531.

Weick, K. E. 1999. Theory construction as disciplined reflex-ivity: Trade-offs in the 90s. Academy of ManagementReview, 24: 797–806.

Wendelin, R. 2011. Bond audit, a method for evaluating busi-ness relationships. Journal of Business and IndustrialMarketing, 26: 211–217.

West, G. W. 1980. Access to adolescent deviants. In W. Shaf-fir, R. A. Stebbins, & A. Turowetz (Eds.) Fieldwork expe-rience: Qualitative approaches to social research: 31–44.New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Whetten, D. A. 1990. Editor’s comments—Personal comments.Academy of Management Review, 15: 578–583.

Whiteman, G. 2010. Management studies that break yourheart. Journal of Management Inquiry, 19: 328–337.

Wolf, D. 1991. High risk methodology. Reflections on leavingan outlaw society. In W. B. Shaffir & R. A. Stebbins (Eds.),Experiencing fieldwork: An inside view of qualitativeresearch: 211–223. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wright, T. A. 2011. And justice for all: Our research partici-pants considered as valued stakeholders. Managementand Organization Review, 7: 495–503.

Wright, T. A., & Wright, V. P. 1999. Ethical responsibility andthe organizational researcher: A committed-to-partici-pant research perspective. Journal of Organizational Be-havior, 20: 1107–1112.

Snejina Michailova ([email protected]) is professor of international busi-ness at the University of Auckland Business School. She received her Ph.D. fromCopenhagen Business School. Her research interests include organizational behaviorissues in a cross-border context, knowledge-based perspectives on organizations, andmethodological issues in management and international management research.

Rebecca Piekkari ([email protected]) is professor of international business atthe Aalto University School of Business. She received her Ph.D. from the HelsinkiSchool of Economics. Her main research interests include qualitative research meth-ods, particularly case study and language issues in multinational corporations.

Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of mar-keting at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. She received her Ph.D. in marketingfrom the University of Strathclyde. Her research interests lie at the interface ofphilosophy of science, qualitative research, and international marketing/business.

Tiina Ritvala ([email protected]) is an assistant professor at the Aalto UniversitySchool of Business. She received her Ph.D. in international business from the HelsinkiSchool of Economics. Her research focuses on institutional processes and change indiverse settings, such as cross-sector networks, social innovations, and emergingindustries.

Irina Mihailova ([email protected]) is a postdoctorate researcher at the AaltoUniversity School of Business. She received her Ph.D. in international business fromthe Helsinki School of Economics. Her research interests cover internationalization offirms from and to emerging economies, knowledge transfer, and international jointventures in Russia.

Asta Salmi ([email protected]) is professor of international business at the AaltoUniversity School of Business. She received her Ph.D. in international business fromthe Helsinki School of Economics. Her research focuses on international businessnetworks and their dynamics, social ties in business, international sourcing, andsustainable supply chains.
