Towards a Butlerian methodology: Undoing organizational performativity through anti-narrative research:

TLDR: In this paper, the authors explore the methodological possibilities that Butler's theory of performativity opens up, attempting to translate her theoretical ideas into research practice, and advocate a research practice premised upon a reflexive undoing of organizational subjectivities and the normative conditions upon which they depend.

Abstract: This article explores the methodological possibilities that Butler’s theory of performativity opens up, attempting to ‘translate’ her theoretical ideas into research practice. Specifically, it considers how research on organizational subjectivity premised upon a performative ontology might be undertaken. It asks: What form might a Butler-inspired methodology take? What methodological opportunities might it afford for developing self-reflexive research? What political and ethical problems might it pose for organizational researchers, particularly in relation to the challenges associated with power asymmetries, and the risks attached to ‘fixing’ subjects within the research process? The article outlines and evaluates a method described as anti-narrative interviewing, arguing that it constitutes a potentially valuable methodological resource for researchers interested in understanding how and why idealized organizational subjectivities are formed and sustained. It further advances the in-roads that Butler’s writing has made into organization studies, thinking through the methodological and ethical implications of her work for understanding the performative constitution of organizational subjectivities. The aim of the article is to advocate a research practice premised upon a reflexive undoing of organizational subjectivities and the normative conditions upon which they depend. It concludes by emphasizing the potential benefits and wider implications of a methodologically reflexive undoing of organizational performativity.

Full text

1
Towards a Butlerian methodology:
Anti-narrative interviewing as a method of undoing organizational performativity
Abstract
This article explores the methodological possibilities that Judith Butler’s theory of
performativity opens up for organizational research. Specifically, it draws on insights from
Butler’s critique of subjective recognition as a process of perpetual ‘undoing’ through which
the complexity of lived experience is compromised in the performance of a seemingly
coherent, recognizable subjectivity. Drawing on an interview-based study focusing on
workplace experiences of gender, ageing and LGBT sexualities, the article considers what it
means to undertake organizational research premised upon a performative ontology grounded
in a critique of the normative conditions governing organizational recognition. Specifically, it
asks: What form might a Butler-inspired methodology take? What opportunities might it open
up or difficulties might it pose for organizational researchers? The article outlines and
evaluates a method described here as ‘anti-narrative interviewing’. We argue that this method
constitutes a valuable methodological resource for organization studies researchers with an
interest in studying how and why idealized organizational subjectivities are formed and
sustained, as well as a way of empirically advancing the in-roads that Butler’s writing has
made into the study of human relations at work.
Keywords
Butler, performativity, qualitative methods, reflexivity, organizational sexuality
Introduction
In this paper, we consider how organizational scholars might apply Judith Butler’s (1988,
1990, 1993, 2004, 2005) theory of performativity to the development of a research

2
methodology designed to ‘undo’ the constraints imposed by the compulsion to perform
seemingly coherent narratives of self within organizational settings. Drawing on data
generated from interviews with self-identified older lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT)
adults in the UK, we argue that Butler’s concept of ‘undoing’ constitutes a useful resource
through which valuable methodological opportunities are opened up. These opportunities
potentially allow us to critically and reflexively understand more about the labour involved in
maintaining the semblances of subjective coherence upon which organizations depend. In our
discussion of the ethical implications of ‘undoing’ as a methodological approach, we
distinguish between an ‘organizational undoing’ through which, in Butler’s terms, ‘the subject
produces its coherence at the cost of its own complexity’ (1993: 115), from what we argue is
the critical potential of a more analytical, reflexive undoing as a methodological imperative.
While the former requires that constraining and conflating the complexity of lived experience
is a condition upon which viable organizational subjectivity depends
i
, the latter is designed to
bring this complexity to the fore, revealing rather than concealing the labour required to
produce and maintain semblances of subjective coherence in and through organizations. In
particular, it allows us to consider the consequences for those who cannot or do not conform
to organizational norms governing who or what counts as a viable subject. With this in mind,
the paper has two specific aims.
First, we aim to consider the methodological potential of Butler’s concepts of
performativity and undoing for the study of human relations at work. Second, we outline and
evaluate the practical application of this potential through our development of ‘anti-narrative’
interviewing as a method of data generation
ii
and analysis within work and organization
studies. As Watson and Watson (2012: 1 and 4) have argued ‘narratives play a very
significant role in human social life’ such that organizational researchers must try to develop
‘more sophisticated methods for understanding the complexities of narratives in individual

3
lives, society and organizations’. With this in mind, we examine how anti-narrative
interviewing can be incorporated into the study of work, considering the resulting
implications for reflexivity and research ethics within the research process, and for
understanding the complexities of narratives, and lived experiences of subjectivity, within
organizations. In particular we ask the following questions: (i) How might a methodology
underpinned by a performative ontology reflexively ‘undo’ organizational subjectivities,
revealing the normative conditions, and identity work, on which they depend? (ii) How do we
develop methodologies and methods that do not simply ‘fix’ the subjects of inquiry
(Ainsworth and Hardy, 2012), reproducing the patterns of narrative coherence and processes
of organizational undoing?; (iii) What are the methodological possibilities for data generation
and analysis if we adopt an anti-narrative approach to organizational research?; (iv) What are
the practical and ethical considerations associated with a methodological, reflexive undoing
and with an anti-narrative research method?
In thinking through these questions, we are particularly inspired by Gilmore and Kenny’s
(2014) recent discussion of self-reflexivity in organizational research, in which they advocate
a move from self- to collective-reflexivity as the basis for a method of data collection and
analysis they describe as ‘pair interviewing’. The latter involves a co-construction of
knowledge that allows themes traditionally downplayed, notably emotion, inter-subjectivity
and power dynamics, to be brought to the fore. In particular, Gilmore and Kenny (2014: 9)
ask: what methods might usefully assist researchers ‘who are committed to self-reflexivity
that is meaningful rather than token?’ recommending a range of research practices. These
include adopting a collective approach to reflexivity (see also Brannan, 2011); conducting
interviews in which the interviewers avoid making ethical or epistemic judgments about
participants’ accounts; facilitating a co-construction of research accounts as the research
progresses, and developing a collective reflexivity throughout the research process ‘as an

4
ongoing practice, rather than as an afterthought’ (Gilmore and Kenny, 2014: 19). However,
despite this methodological commitment to collective reflexivity, Gilmore and Kenny (2014)
note that the theoretical resources available to us in attempting to move towards a
methodology premised upon inter-subjectivity and relationality remain relatively limited.
With this in mind, and in addressing the questions outlined above, we seek to draw on
and develop the inroads that Butler’s writing (1988, 1990, 1993, 2004, 2005) has begun to
make into work and organization studies over the last decade or so (Borgerson, 2005; Harding
et al, 2011, 2013; Hodgson, 2005; Parker, 2002; Thanem and Wallenberg, 2014). Within the
field to date, Butler’s work has been cited particularly in organizational analyses of gender as
performative (Jeanes, 2007; Phillips and Knowles, 2012; Pilgeram, 2007; Pullen and Knights,
2007). Her writing has also been a reference point in research on LGBT sexualities, in
particular focusing on how LGBT subjects struggle to achieve recognition as viable selves
within organizations that privilege heterosexuality (Binnie and Klesse, 2013; Schilt and
Connell, 2007; Ward and Winstanley, 2003). While empirically focussed and theoretically
rich, what remains relatively under-developed within this literature is the integration of
insights from Butler into methodological debates about how we might, in practical ways,
develop our understanding of how gendered, LGBT subjectivities are undone by
heteronormative organizational processes and assumptions
iii
.
At the same time, the wider implications of Butler’s writing for the theoretical analysis
of the relationship between organization and subjectivity beyond a thematic, analytical
concern with gender and/or sexuality have yet to be fully explored (for a notable exception,
see Parker, 2002). This is particularly the case in terms of considering the wider implications
of how Butler frames subjectivity as the outcome of a process of organization through which
the self is ‘called to account’ (Butler, 2004, 2005). Further, both analyses of gender and

5
sexuality and broader engagements with Butler’s work regarding organization and organizing
(Borgerson, 2005; Hodgson, 2005; Parker, 2002) rarely comment on the opportunities for, and
the practicalities associated with, employing a Butlerian performative methodology designed
to ‘undo’ organizational/organizing processes in research design. Our aim in this paper is to
address this gap. In this respect, we seek to counter some of the criticisms levelled at Butler’s
theory of performativity and undoing as overly abstract and difficult to apply ‘in the field’
(Fraser, 1997; Morison and Macleod, 2013). We also seek to address the question of how we
might actually ‘do’ organizational research inspired by conceptual and theoretical insights
from Butler’s writing. We do so by mapping and evaluating a practice based methodological
application of Butler’s theoretical analysis of the dynamic relationship between organizational
subjectivity and the norms by which it is both compelled and constrained.
The paper is structured as follows. We begin by considering Butler’s writing on
performativity and undoing, retracing her steps thus far within work and organization studies,
identifying conceptual and theoretical inroads. We then consider the as yet unexplored
methodological implications of her work for the study of organizational life, outlining the
approach we took to researching lived experiences of older LGBT workers. Here we map out
three characteristics of our methodology that were particularly inspired by Butler, which we
subsequently evaluate in the hope that they might be useful to other organizational
researchers. These are: (i) a methodological ‘undoing’ based on a performative ontology; (ii)
‘anti-narrative’ interviewing as a method of data generation and analysis, and (iii) a
commitment to a recognition-based, reflexive undoing based on an ethics of openness.
In conclusion, we reflect on the many questions opened up by considering the
methodological implications of Butler’s writing, emphasizing the broader applicability of a
Butlerian methodological approach to research within the field of organization studies.
Ultimately, our aim is to highlight the as yet unrealized methodological possibilities afforded

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What have the authors contributed in "Towards a butlerian methodology: anti-narrative interviewing as a method of undoing organizational performativity" ?

This article explores the methodological possibilities that Judith Butler ’ s theory of performativity opens up for organizational research. Drawing on an interview-based study focusing on workplace experiences of gender, ageing and LGBT sexualities, the article considers what it means to undertake organizational research premised upon a performative ontology grounded in a critique of the normative conditions governing organizational recognition. The article outlines and evaluates a method described here as ‘ anti-narrative interviewing ’. The authors argue that this method constitutes a valuable methodological resource for organization studies researchers with an interest in studying how and why idealized organizational subjectivities are formed and sustained, as well as a way of empirically advancing the in-roads that Butler ’ s writing has made into the study of human relations at work. 

Q2. What future works have the authors mentioned in the paper "Towards a butlerian methodology: anti-narrative interviewing as a method of undoing organizational performativity" ?

In sum, this paper has explored the methodological possibilities that Judith Butler ’ s theory of performativity opens up for researching organizational settings and relations, drawing particularly on insights from Butler ’ s critique of subjective recognition as a process through which the complexity of lived experience is conflated in the performance of seemingly coherent, recognizable subjectivities. The authors have sought to pick up on this point, particularly in developing Gilmore and Kenny ’ s concern to build the theoretical resources from which organizational researchers might draw in the future. Their research suggests that organizations play an important role in faltering their narratives, the very narratives that organizations compel us to cohere on their behalf. 

Q3. What was the purpose of the research design?

Rather than understood as ‘difficulties’ that the methodology needed to overcome, their research design was specifically intended to cultivate these moments of disruption and destabilisation, revealing the performativities at stake within the research process, with the aim being to privilege and also understand the performative capacity, of the research participants in assuming positions as knowing subjects within the research. 

Q4. What is the purpose of giving an account of oneself?

Anti-narrative interviewing as a research method Butler’s understanding of narrative, developed most fully in her book, Giving an Account of Oneself (2005), provides a useful performative lens through which to understand how narratives operate in the social construction of subjectivity. 

Q5. What is the purpose of the anti-narrative approach?

Their anti-narrative approach therefore seeks to disrupt the apparent linearity, stabilityand coherence of organizational performances by ‘undoing’ (Butler, 2004) seemingly coherent subjectivities as a methodologically reflexive move. 

Q6. What was the purpose of the interviews?

The interviews were therefore designed to provide a methodological opportunity to ‘undo’ rather than replicate the compulsion to present and perform organizational subjectivity through semblances of narrative coherence, such as those premised upon linear, heteronormative assumptions about the life course. 

Q7. What is the purpose of the Butlerian methodology?

It is in (i) attempting to reveal the labour involved in continually striving forsubjective coherence; (ii) understanding how the ways in which the complexities of lived experience are conflated through this labour constitute an organizational ‘undoing’, and (iii) creating a research space in which participants can reflect on the negating effects of being unable or unwilling to maintain subjective coherence, or on the sheer effort required to do so, that a Butlerian methodology is particularly useful. 

Q8. What is the purpose of anti-narrative interviewing?

To put it simply, their approach seeks to encourage critical, reflexive evaluation of the conditions and consequences of narrative construction within organizational settings. 

Q9. What was his concern about being ‘fixed’?

His concern surrounded being ‘fixed’ (Ainsworth and Hardy, 2012) into a particular set of heteronormative assumptions and associations through an organizational undoing, assumptions that their research design was concerned to reflexively undo rather than replicate. 

Q10. How many people were invited to participate in the study?

With this in mind, and in keeping with the ethos of openness outlined above, and with the way in which the authors sought to integrate this into their research design, all of those who expressed an interest in being involved were invited to take part, resulting in a final sample of five gay men, two lesbian women and one male-female transsexual (as indicated above). 

Q11. What did Emma think of her life course as?

As she put it, reflecting specifically on how difficult she found it to think of her own experiences in terms of a chronological ‘life course’:“Course” to me suggests a path and a more linear kind of thing. 

Q12. What is Debbie’s comment on the interview?

In this latter comment, Debbie suggests that not only is their research design not enabling us (and her) to articulate the disjuncture between different aspects of her lived experience, she also implicitly questions the ethics of their approach and of their methodological conduct in ‘taking apart’ the various subject positions she struggles to occupy and the coherent narrative she works to maintain, her latter comment potentially implying both an epistemic and ethical failure on their part. 

Q13. What did Emma do to maintain her level of visibility?

One of their participants, Emma, for instance, described to us how she constantly sought to manage her level of organizational visibility in order for her identity as a lesbian woman not to assume a prominent role in organizational exchanges, this despite her accumulated experience and professional status as a training consultant with large, public and private sector employers.