Julian Orr’s Talking About Machines

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The author, the reader and the informant
The balance between description and analysis
Theory in the text
Methodological and conceptual contributions to anthropological knowledge
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

Orr’s book Talking about Machines has become one of the most significant writings in the field of anthropology since it revealed new insights in the overall study. The author underlines the importance of fieldwork which is conducted in quite specific way.

Orr was inside the group of workers under analysis and his book has the author who is at the same time an informant. The reader can consider the analysis of an individual who knows the insights of the workplace and the group in question. This peculiarity of Orr’s approach results in a specific type of writing where theory is intermingled with narrative.

Orr manages to combine thorough analysis and description. Admittedly, the researcher uses a very specific and effective approach of interpreting data. Orr’s orientation on “situatedness” enables him to make his data precise and interpretation profound (Yanow 2006:1746). Moreover, his research has contributed greatly to the development of anthropology since it opened up new horizons for researchers.

The author, the reader and the informant

Admittedly, anthropologists used to consider peculiarities of exotic people living in faraway lands. However, Orr is one of those who understands that the natives of anthropologic research should not be “the alien and exotic others” but these should be “oddly familiar domestic others who might be our cohorts at work”, neighbors or researchers themselves (qtd. in Neyland 2007:129).

Orr became a shadow for copier workers when they were working, having lunch or communicated with each other and customers (Yanow 2006:1746). Interestingly, the author of the book was also a part of a group of informants. Many researchers claim that being a part of a group enables the researcher to see more complete picture (Enslin 1994:537). Even defining the term “work” Orr is focused on workers’ position, rather than on some virtual amount of work completed (Orr 1996:10).

Workers are put in the center of the research. Workers’ activities, their communication and their sharing experience make the scope of data for Orr. Basically, he “connect[s] players and not isolate[s] them within their own perspectives” (Boud et al. 2006:21). More so, he considers workers perspectives from the point of view of one of them but not as a distant researcher on the basis of some statistical data.

Interestingly, Orr points out that “machines participate in society” (1996:3). Thus, the researcher is interested in the triangular: worker, customer, machine.

Orr does not only observe the communication patterns between workers, or between workers and consumers, he also pays attention to the way workers treat (or “communicate” with) machines. Thus, informants of the research are not only people but machines as well. It goes without saying that such approach was not widespread among anthropologists who were concerned with people only.

The majority of researchers are keen to answer the question “what does it mean to be a human?” (Wardle 2007:1). Nevertheless, Orr noted that machines also influenced people’s behavior since workers tried to “educate” consumers treat their machines correctly. Of course, everyday work with machine shapes workers communication, since machines play an important role in workers talks.

The balance between description and analysis

Boon (1983) points out that ethnographic writing is largely based on the data obtained from a fieldwork, so it should contain both description and analysis. However, this issue is still disputable since many researchers cannot agree upon what can be regarded as a fact and what interpretation can be regarded as precise and correct (Heider 2001).

However, many researchers that “[t]acking between situated narrative and more sweeping analysis” is essential for ethnography, though it is quite difficult to succeed (Narayan 1993:672). Orr, however, finds the gold mean and his book is characterized by a perfect balance of description and analysis. In the first place, Orr pays much attention to “situatedness” and claims that place is important for analysis (Yanow 2006:1751).

It goes without saying that his writing provides a lot of description of workers’ conversations and their activities, and even workplace. Admittedly, fieldnotes can be archival materials or a record of people communicating (Sanjek 1990:391). Apparently, Orr considered all possible fieldnotes. All this helped Orr recreate the world of the workers.

On the basis, of the data obtained during observation Orr can put puzzles in their place and create a full picture. Anderson (1986) points out that description is an important “product” of fieldwork, and since ethnographic analysis is based on fieldwork, it is but natural that description plays an important role in ethnographic writing (64).

Thus, Orr’s description is an illustration of his findings and justification of his conclusions. His writing also signals: “You are there, because I was there” (Clifford 1983:118). Orr’s approach to analysis and interpretation of workers’ behavior is intermingled with description.

Theory in the text

Admittedly theory played a significant role in anthropology in the nineteenth century (Urry 2001:101). More so, anthropologists relied on theory to great extent. As far as ethnographic writing is concerned, it also relies on theory, but to less extent. For instance, Orr’s book is not a description of his fieldwork and his conclusions.

He provides profound background knowledge which helps the reader to “speak” the same language with other. In fact, the author reveals the theoretical discourse in his book. Orr refers to many researchers supporting or refuting their findings and research methods.

Admittedly, ethnographic writing contains a great deal of fiction and some researchers tend to regard it as fiction rather than ethnography (Narayan 1999). However, Orr is scientific in his writing. Stocking (1995) states that theory can help to solve many problems where the data obtained during the fieldwork can be quite confusing (364). Thus, Orr uses theoretical background to analyze the product of his fieldwork.

Methodological and conceptual contributions to anthropological knowledge

Yanow (2006) claims that Orr’s book is a great contribution to organization studies (1753). It goes without saying that Orr has developed many interesting approaches for ethnographic research. The major concept of his work presupposes that only insider can have the complete data about the group. Orr points out that

The significant thing…is that the examination of practice reveals a complexity that cannot be seen from a distance; this complexity constrains how the work can be done and therefore has crucial implications for those making policy about work … Discussions of work that omit this vital aspect of practice lose the point from which anything else that may be described originates. (qtd. in Yanow 2006:1753).

Thus, Orr insists on closer look at people’s workplace. The place is of primary importance for Orr since it is a starting point for any observation. Besides, Orr is not confined to certain activities in which the members of the group are involved. Every minute of the working day is recorded and analyzed.

More so, Orr argues that it is essential to consider people’s behavior in terms of all the scope of activities involving not only other people (like colleagues or customers), but to take into account the influence of machines on people. This approach is rather innovative for anthropology.

Thus, Orr provides a detailed analysis in terms of organization studies, but he is not concerned with methodology, but rather appreciates “those things that make us” (Yanow 2006:1753).

Orr does not present a distant look at some peculiarities of people’s interaction in a workplace, but reveals possible explanations of the reasons why people act in that specific way. Admittedly, Orr’s approach can be regarded as a bright example of unique methodological approach which leads to deeper understanding of processes which take place in working place.

Conclusion

Thus, Orr’s Talking about Machines is one of those books which provide essential information on the topic and can be regarded as a guideline for a successful ethnographic research. Orr’s book is a great example of the balance of description, theory and analysis. The author became a member of a group to understand the processes which took place in the workplace.

Therefore, he does not present a distant analysis of potential reasons, but explicitly points out major factors which influence workers. Admittedly, Orr has made a great contribution into the development of anthropological studies since he suggested new approaches of analysis and showed that they are effective. It cannot be surprising that the book is still being discussed by many researchers since it gives new insights to the essence of anthropological research.

Reference List

Anderson, Jon W. 1986. ‘Reinventing the Shape of Meaning: Ambiguities in the Ontology of Ethnography.’ Anthropological Quarterly 59(2): 64-74.

Boon, James. A. 1983. ‘Functionalists Write, Too: Frazer/Malinowski and the Semiotics of the Monograph.’ Semiotica 46(2/4):131-149.

Boud, David, Peter Cressey and Peter Docherty. 2006. Productive Reflection at Work: Learning for Changing Organizations. New York, NY: Routledge.

Clifford, James. 1983. ‘On Ethnographic Authority.’ Respresentations Number 2: 118-146.

Enslin, Elizabeth. 1994. ‘Beyond Writing: Feminist Practice and the Limitations of Ethnography.’ Cultural Anthropology 9(4):537-568.

Heider, Karl G. 2001. ‘The Rashomon Effect: When Ethnographers Disagree.’ Pp.398- 407 in Ethnography, vol. III, edited by Alan Bryman. London: Sage.

Narayan, Kirin. 1993. ‘How Native is a “Native” Anthropologist?’ American Anthropologist 95:671-686.

Narayan, Kirin. 1999. ‘Ethnography and Fiction: Where is the Border?’ Anthropology and Humanism 24(2):134-147.

Neyland, Daniel. 2007. Organizational Ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Orr, J. E. 1996. Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Sanjek, Roger. (Ed.) 1990. “FIELDNOTES: The Makings of Anthropology” pp.385-418 in ‘On Ethnographic Validity.’ Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Stocking, George W. 1995. The Ethnographer’s Magic and Other Essays in the History of Anthropology. Madison, WI: Univ of Wisconsin Press.

Urry, James. 2001. ‘Notes and Queries on Anthropology and the Development of Field Methods in British Anthropology, 1870-1920.’ pp 101-127 in Ethnography, vol. I edited by Alan Bryman, London: Sage.

Wardle, Huon, Gay Y Blasco, Paloma Gay Y. 2007. How to Read Ethnography, ‘Introduction: The concerns and distinctiveness of ethnography’ (pp 1-12). London and New York: Routledge.

Yanow, Dvora. 2006. ‘Talking about Practices: On Julian Orr’s Talking About Machines.’ Organization Studies 27(12):1743-1756.

Click Here To Order Now!