Editorial Free

The question of how to gain research access is a dreaded one amongst organizational ethnographers. The process of gaining formal access to organizations is notoriously unpredictable and often protracted, testing the patience and persistence of the researcher. When organizational researchers write about access to organizations, they tend to refer to negotiations over formalized, institutional consent. Once having entered the field, however, the researcher's presence is bound to be continuously questioned by interlocutors, with whom they have to develop trust and define their relationships. The things researchers feel compelled to do, or accept being subjected to, in order to have their presence accepted and secure continued access have so far attracted less attention. This special issue (SI) explores these experiences, which all ethnographers have encountered in one way or another, and place them under the spot light in a way that will both be the reference point for and the start of a conversation about the tests we pass in the field, about their emotional and ethical implications, and their analytical value.

The SI thus develops a discussion of an underexplored aspect of ethnographic fieldwork, collecting stories of the identifiable events – the rites of passage – through which researchers negotiates their role in the social life of the organization they are studying. The idea of “passing the test” in ethnographic fieldwork tackles the reality that goes beyond making it past initial gatekeepers, and entails exploring the hurdles that need to be cleared in order to gain trust, acceptance or credibility with research participants. The tests will be subtle and not so subtle, unpleasant, awkward, violent or ethically or emotionally challenging, and ongoing and repeated, also upon later return to the field. What are these tests? How do we know we have passed? What happens when you fail the test, or when you succeed? What are their ethical implications of the tests, and how do they affect academic knowledge production?

As a starting point, we consider access as a continuous process, rather than a single event (Cunliffe and Alcadipani, 2016; Kalir et al., 2019). The contributors of this issue have been invited to reflect on the identifiable events where this process was initiated, disrupted or altered, and where researchers themselves became subjected to observation and scrutiny (Crapanzano, 2010), when they were pushed to reflect on their positionality in the field (Bergman Blix and Wettergren, 2015; Reyes, 2018; Bourke, 2014), or to “take sides” (Becker, 1967). The authors come from a variety of disciplines, including sociology, anthropology, management studies, criminology, business and administration, social policy and socio-legal studies. Their contributions cover a wide range of field sites, ranging from illicit organizations (Young, this issue), activist (Deschner and Dorion) and anarchist (Farias) communities, police patrols (Borrelli) and immigration detention (Breuls) to fire safety in the construction industry (Karsten) and start-up companies (Ilkjaer and Madsen). They demonstrate the variety of positions researchers can take – or be assigned – in their respective fields. The variety of organizations discussed within the different contributions shows that tests occur no matter the approach.

The articles provide useful clues for new organizational ethnographers regarding ways of staying in the field once having obtained formal access and navigating the delicate ethical and emotional dilemmas that these processes evoke. Moreover, they invite to a discussion on researchers' positionality and how “the field” reflects on our presence as ethnographers. The notion of continuous tests illustrates the inadequacy of simplified, static binaries that posit the researcher as either “inside” or “outside” the field (Van Maanen, 2009). Instead, the researcher's positionality can be understood as “suspended in a betwixt-and-between position” (Ergun and Erdemir, 2009, p. 16), which does not necessarily result either in inclusion or exclusion – something which has been underscored within, e.g. politically engaged ethnographic research (Reedy and King, 2017; Deschner and Dorion, this issue). The tests are a prism through which we can explore the moments where this in-between status is negotiated, and what they reveal about the researcher, the researched and the processes and power relations of knowledge production. In this regard, the contributions also show that the tests have important analytical value: they tell us important things about the field site as such, and further show how organisations shape and mediate social relations and give rise to new subjectivities – including for the researcher.

The papers collected in this issue discuss issues of “passing the test” based on the authors’ ethnographic studies of a broad variety of organisations. Two papers are based on research with state institutions that control migration: immigration detention centres in the Netherlands and Belgium (Lars Breuls) and the Swedish border police force (Borrelli). Two papers come out of embedded research in Danish companies: fire safety in the construction industry (Mette Marie Karsten) and a start-up (Helene Ilkjær and My Madsen). Two papers are based on research with political organisations, an anarchist-inspired community (Carine Farias) and two left-wing activist movements (Léa Dorion and Claire Deschner). Finally, one paper is based on fieldwork with an informal, illegal organisation (Kathrynne Young). The following section provides a brief overview of each of them.

Lars Breuls' paper analytically engages with the practical and emotional challenges he encountered during his fieldwork in Dutch and Belgian immigration detention centres. Taking emotion as “data in itself”, Breuls argues for a breakdown of the somewhat artificial distinction between methodology and analytical discussion. In turn, he shows how challenges like distrust, disruptions of organisational routines, and witnessing and experiencing powerlessness can provide rich analytical material that each speaks to key aspects of the organisations' routines, power dynamics and conflicts.

Lisa Marie Borrelli, in her paper, discusses moments of “being tested” during fieldwork with the Swedish border police office. Her article argues that testing is an ongoing process and shows examples of the uncomfortable in-between of not-quite-belonging as well as not-quite-wanting-to-belong. Borrelli argues that an analysis of testing improves our understanding of our own positionality as researchers and can shed light on central aspects of an organisation. In her case, she connects the suspicion she faced during her fieldwork with the “culture of suspicion” that defined everyday police work.

Mette Marie Karsten's paper is based on industrial fieldwork on digitisation of fire safety knowledge embedded in the Danish construction industry. Her contribution discusses how “collaboration” as a way to engage with colleagues/informants during organizational fieldwork is a pre-condition for “passing tests” in a corporate environment. Such tests unfolded as subtle, verbalized demands by interlocutors to prove the “relevance” of anthropology in a result-oriented setting. The article suggests that daring to collaborate and to co-produce products (as something different than texts) during organizational, ethnographic fieldwork for the benefit of both corporate and ethnographic interests offers strong possibilities for keeping ethnography relevant and applicable, passing “tests” in organizational settings and advancing ethnography's impact in the world.

Helene Ilkjær and Mette Madsen present an auto-ethnographic methodological exploration based on the former's placement within an interdisciplinary team of engineers, scientists and designers in a Danish technology start-up company. A detailed examination of the creation and disregard of a “manual” highlights the moments where the anthropologist's position within the team was tested – with different potential outcomes. As Ilkjaer was officially employed by the company but also carrying out research in affiliation with a university, the two authors explore the slippery and negotiable nature of positionality, torn between anthropology “for” and “of” the company.

Carine Farias' paper addresses the “reciprocal violence” that characterises ethnographers' presence in the field. Her article accounts for the “hostile tests” she encountered when engaging with a network of anarchist-inspired communities. Despite having gained negotiated formal access, Farias faces severely antagonistic responses to her presence in the community. She argues that reflexively unpacking those tests posits a key to successful fieldwork and suggests three practices that proved helpful in this endeavour. First, Farias showed tenacity by not abandoning her research project and initially sticking to those participants willing to be shadowed. This mimicked dispute settlement and socialisation practices already established in the community. Second, she disclosed herself and made participants more at ease by sharing personal stories. Finally, Farias partly adapted her behaviour to reflect the group's value but stayed consistent with her main goals and aims of her project.

Léa Dorion and Claire Deschner, in their contribution, build on their experience as activist ethnographers in two European cities. They show that testing is continuous and highly relevant also in cases where standpoint epistemologies seek to bridge the divide between researcher and field. Dorion and Deschner show how in organisations with unclear boundaries, belonging and group membership are constantly questioned. As a result, individuals are held accountable to their movement's ideals and interests, a process that is exacerbated by the pursuit of a research project. The authors also reflect on what happens when researchers, too, become involved in defining the boundaries of the organization.

Kathryne Young, in her contribution, examines a series of tests that she faced when researching an illegal organisation – a Hawaiian cockfighting association. Young reflects on more and less successful tests, and on the challenge of negotiating research and personal ethics in an illegal organisation, and detail how she had to negotiate her own positionality, informed by gender, class and educational background, amongst other things. In highlighting her own lessons learnt from the fieldwork, Young shows how reflecting on tests can not only improve our present work but also provide learning opportunities for future research endeavours.

As guest editors of this SI, we take the liberty to conclude the SI with an article of our own. Based on our research ethnographic fieldwork with migration control agents in Sweden, Denmark and Germany, we how tests need to be addressed properly. For this, we provide an open typology of tests we encountered. Furthermore, we propose four ways in which ethnographers could address these tests: acknowledging them methodologically, working through them personally and collectively, unpacking them analytically and preparing others in teaching and peer-feedback.