Bruno’s holy grail.

The focus of this paper is on doing reflexive organisational research. As Rhodes and Brown (2004) point out, it’s time to take responsibility for the work our words do and to write responsibly. My interest in reflexivity has been triggered by the work of Foucault who was concerned with the ways ‘human beings are made subjects’ (Foucault, 1982, p. 208). In undertaking this project he explored the subjectifying practices of the social sciences and the interconnection between the social sciences and the micropractices of power (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1982). Foucault’s work draws attention to the politics of meaning and the politics of identity. Words ‘do’ work, and as researchers and producers of organisational texts we are entangled in the heterogeneous networks that produce objects and subjects.
Drawing on my recent experience in a three year, ARC funded project exploring everyday learning at work, I discuss researcher/researched entanglements (MacLure, 2003). The technologies of the research project were part of the heterogeneous assemblages producing subjects in this workplace. This illustrates the importance of doing reflexive enquiry. But how might we do this?
Cunliffe (2003) says that this is a question that has generated little discussion. However it is a question that appears to be of increasing interest to organisational researchers and Rhodes and Brown (2004) have provided a useful paper for generating discussion. My aim in this paper is to contribute to this discussion by introducing Latour’s notion of infra-reflexivity (1988). This is an approach that I find very appealing. But am I being seduced by this persuasive text? - which is indeed one of the aims of infra-reflexivity. Is it the holy grail of reflexivity? And what might it offer organisational researchers?