Be-ing seen: towards a feminist interpretative phenomenological analysis to researching the marginalised

References

• Abdellatif, A. 2022. Women on Boards: An IPA Study of the Facilitators and Barriers to Women’s Representation on Boards Within the Egyptian Banking Sector. Newcastle: Northumbria University.
   Google Scholar
• Abdelzaher, A., and D. Abdelzaher. 2019. “Women on Boards and Firm Performance in Egypt: Post the Arab Spring.” The Journal of Developing Areas 53 (1): 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2019.0013
   Google Scholar
• Abdullah, S. N., K. N. I. K. Ismail, and L. Nachum. 2016. “Does Having Women on Boards Create Value? The Impact of Societal Perceptions and Corporate Governance in Emerging Markets.” Strategic Management Journal 37 (3): 466–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2352
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed, S. 2006. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others. Durham: Duke University.
   Google Scholar
• Akin, G., and E. Schultheiss. 1990. “Jazz Bands and Missionaries: OD Through Stories and Metaphor.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 5 (4): 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949010142731
   Google Scholar
• Aldossari, M., and S. E. Murphy. 2023. “Inclusion Is in the Eye of the Beholder: A Relational Analysis of the Role of Gendered Moral Rationalities in Saudi Arabia.” Work, Employment and Society, in press.
   Google Scholar
• Annells, M. 1996. “Hermeneutic Phenomenology: Philosophical Perspectives and Current Use in Nursing Research.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 23 (4): 705–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1996.tb00041.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avakian, S. 2020. “Nikos Kazantzakis’s Phenomenology and Its Relevance to the Study of Organizations.” Culture and Organization 26 (3): 250–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2019.1570195
   Google Scholar
• Bell, E., S. Meriläinen, S. Taylor, and J. Tienari. 2020. “Dangerous Knowledge: The Political, Personal, and Epistemological Promise of Feminist Research in Management and Organization Studies.” International Journal of Management Reviews 22 (2): 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12221
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belova, O. 2006. “The Event of Seeing: A Phenomenological Perspective on Visual Sense-Making.” Culture and Organization 12 (2): 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759550600682866
   Google Scholar
• Berger, R. 2015. “Now I See It, Now I Don’t: Researcher’s Position and Reflexivity in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Research 15 (2): 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berggren, K., and L. Gottzén. 2023. ““It’s Not Just Dad Who’s Got Problems”: Feminist Phenomenology and Young Men’s Violence Against Women.” Men and Masculinities 26 (3): 453–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X231183389
   Google Scholar
• Birt, L., S. Scott, D. Cavers, C. Campbell, and F. Walter. 2016. “Member Checking: A Tool to Enhance Trustworthiness or Merely a Nod to Validation?” Qualitative Health Research 26 (13): 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boncori, I. 2022. Researching and Writing Differently. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brannelly, T., and M. Barnes. 2022. Researching with Care: Applying Feminist Care Ethics to Research Practice. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Burgess-Proctor, A. 2015. “Methodological and Ethical Issues in Feminist Research with Abused Women: Reflections on Participants’ Vulnerability and Empowerment.” Women's Studies International Forum 48: 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2014.10.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caicedo, M. H. 2011. “The Story of Us: On the Nexus Between Metaphor and Story in Writing Scientific Articles.” Culture and Organization 17 (5): 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2011.622902
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calás, M. B., and L. Smircich. 2006. “From the ‘Woman’s Point of View’ Ten Years Later: Towards a Feminist Organization Studies.” In The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies, edited by S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, and W. R. Nord, 284–346. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Cassidy, E., F. Reynolds, S. Naylor, and L. De Souza. 2011. “Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis to Inform Physiotherapy Practice: An Introduction with Reference to the Lived Experience of Cerebellar Ataxia.” Physiotherapy Theory and Practice 27 (4): 263–277. https://doi.org/10.3109/09593985.2010.488278
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cho, J., and A. Trent. 2006. “Validity in Qualitative Research Revisited.” Qualitative Research 6 (3): 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106065006
   Google Scholar
• Clifford, G., G. Craig, and C. Mccourt. 2019. ““Am iz Kwiin” (I’m his Queen): Combining Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis with a Feminist Approach to Work with Gems in a Resource-Constrained Setting.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 16 (2): 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2018.1543048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. A., A. Kassan, K. Wada, and M. Suehn. 2022. “The Personal and the Political: How a Feminist Standpoint Theory Epistemology Guided an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 19 (4): 917–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2021.1957047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cope, J. 2011. “Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative phenomenological analysis.” Journal of Business Venturing 26 (6): 604–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daley, A. 2010. “Reflections on Reflexivity and Critical Reflection as Critical Research Practices.” Affilia 25 (1): 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109909354981
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Beauvoir, S. 2009. The Second Sex. translated by: Borde, C. and Malovany-Chevallier, S. (1949). New York: Vintage Books.
   Google Scholar
• Doyle, S. 2007. “Member Checking with Older Women: A Framework for Negotiating Meaning.” Health Care for Women International 28 (10): 888–908. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399330701615325
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Easterby-Smith, M. P., R. Thorpe, and P. Jackson. 2008. Management Research: Theory and Research. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Eatough, V., and J. A. Smith. 2017. “Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, edited by C. Willig, and W. Stainton-Rogers, 194–212. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Egyptian Institute of Directors. 2016. The Egyptian Code of Corporate Governance. Retrieved from https://www.ecgi.global/publications/codes/egyptian-code-of-corporate-governance
   Google Scholar
• Ewenstein, B., and J. Whyte. 2007. “Beyond Words: Aesthetic Knowledge and Knowing in Organizations.” Organization Studies 28 (5): 689–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607078080
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faria, C., and S. Mollett. 2016. “Critical Feminist Reflexivity and the Politics of Whiteness in the ‘Field’.” Gender, Place & Culture 23 (1): 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2014.958065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finlay, L. 2009. “Ambiguous Encounters: A Relational Approach to Phenomenological Research.” Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology 9 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/20797222.2009.11433983
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, M. 2008. “Hermeneutics.” In The SAGE Encyclopaedia of Qualitative Research Methods, edited by L. M. Given, 387–387. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Gabaldon, P., C. De Anca, R. Mateos De Cabo, and R. Gimeno. 2016. “Searching for Women on Boards: An Analysis from the Supply and Demand Perspective.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 24 (3): 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallhofer, S. 1998. “The Silences of Mainstream Feminist Accounting Research.” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 9 (3): 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.1997.0191
   Google Scholar
• Gill, M. J. 2014. “The Possibilities of Phenomenology for Organizational Research.” Organizational Research Methods 17 (2): 118–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113518348
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grondin, J. 2015. “The Hermeneutical Circle.” In A Companion to Hermeneutics, edited by N. Keane, and C. Lawn. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Hamdan, R., N. Nasrallah, R. El Khoury, A. Hamdan, and B. Alareeni. 2022. “Presence of Women on Boards in Industrial Firms: Evidence from GCC Countries Financial Markets.” International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management 17 (1): 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2021.1985644
   Google Scholar
• Harding, S. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harding, S., and K. Norberg. 2005. “New Feminist Approaches to Social Science Methodologies: An Introduction.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30 (4): 2009–2015. https://doi.org/10.1086/428420
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haynes, K. 2008. “Moving the Gender Agenda or Stirring Chicken’s Entrails? Where Next for Feminist Methodologies in Accounting?” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 21 (4): 539–555. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810872914
   Google Scholar
• Haynes, K. 2023. “Reflexivity and Academic Identity in Accounting: Intersubjective Reflexive Identity Work as a Feminist Academic.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 36 (5): 1379–1395. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2022-6099
   Google Scholar
• Hefferon, K. M., and S. Ollis. 2006. “‘Just Clicks’: An Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis of Professional Dancers’ Experience of Flow.” Research in Dance Education 7 (2): 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647890601029527
   Google Scholar
• Heidegger, M. 1926/1962. Being and Time. New York: Harper Brothers.
   Google Scholar
• Hesse-Biber, S. 2014. “Feminist Approaches to in-Depth Interviewing.” In Feminist Research Practice: A Primer, edited by S. Hesse-Biber, 182–232. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Holland, N. J., and P. Huntington. eds. 2001. Feminist Interpretations of Martin Heidegger. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Huntington, P. 2001. “History of the Feminist Reception of Heidegger and a Guide to Heidegger's Thought.” In Feminist Interpretations of Martin Heidegger, edited by N. J. Holland, and P. Huntington, 1–42. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania University Press.
   Google Scholar
• International Finance Corporation. 2019. Women on Boards in Egypt: How Gender-Diverse Boards Bring Value to Egyptian Companies. https://www.ifc.org/en/insights-reports/2019/women-on-boards-research-study-in-egypt
   Google Scholar
• Jamjoom, L. A., and A. J. Mills. 2023. “Narratives of Workplace Resistance: Reframing Saudi Women in Leadership.” Human Relations 76 (7): 955–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267221087593
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayawardena-Willis, T. S., E. Pio, and P. Mcghee. 2021. “The Divine States (Brahmaviharas) in Managerial Ethical Decision-Making in Organisations in Sri Lanka: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.” Journal of Business Ethics 168 (1): 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04240-6
   Google Scholar
• Jedličková, L., M. Müller, D. Halová, and T. Cserge. 2022. “Combining Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis and Existential Hermeneutic Phenomenology to Reveal Critical Moments of Managerial Lived Experience: A Methodological Guide.” Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 17 (1): 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-09-2020-2024
   Google Scholar
• Johansson, J., and A. Wickström. 2023. “Constructing a ‘Different’ Strength: A Feminist Exploration of Vulnerability, Ethical Agency and Care.” Journal of Business Ethics 184 (2): 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05121-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kafle, N. P. 2013. “Hermeneutic Phenomenological Research Method Simplified.” Bodhi: An Interdisciplinary Journal 5 (1): 181–200. https://doi.org/10.3126/bodhi.v5i1.8053
   Google Scholar
• Klostermann, J. 2020. “Investigating the Organizational Everyday: A Critical Feminist Approach.” Culture and Organization 26 (4): 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2019.1576681
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kociatkiewicz, J., and M. Kostera. 2023. “Writing Differently: On the Constraints and Possibilities of Presenting Research Rooted in Feminist Epistemologies.” Gender, Work & Organization in press. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.13072
   Google Scholar
• Koelsch, L. E. 2013. “Reconceptualizing the Member Check Interview.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 12 (1): 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kostera, M. 2023. “Introduction.” In How to Write Differently. A Quest for Meaningful Academic Writing, edited by M. Kostera, 1–7. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Langdridge, D. 2008. “Phenomenology and Critical Social Psychology: Directions and Debates in Theory and Research.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2 (3): 1126–1142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00114.x
   Google Scholar
• Larkin, M., S. Watts, and E. Clifton. 2006. “Giving Voice and Making Sense in Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp062oa
   Google Scholar
• Laverty, S. M. 2003. “Hermeneutic Phenomenology and Phenomenology: A Comparison of Historical and Methodological Considerations.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2 (3): 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200303
   Google Scholar
• Letiche, H. 2009. “Reflexivity and Affectivity.” Culture and Organization 15 (3-4): 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759550903119301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lutz, C. 2002. “Emotions and Feminist Theories.” In Querelles: Jahrbuch für Frauenforschung, edited by I. Kasten, G. Stedman, and M. Zimmermann, 104–121. Stuttgart.: J.B. Metzler.
   Google Scholar
• Mahadeo, J. D., T. Soobaroyen, and V. O. Hanuman. 2012. “Board Composition and Financial Performance: Uncovering the Effects of Diversity in an Emerging Economy.” Journal of Business Ethics 105 (3): 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0973-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manning, J. 2018. “Becoming a Decolonial Feminist Ethnographer: Addressing the Complexities of Positionality and Representation.” Management Learning 49 (3): 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507617745275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meléndez, G., and B. Özkazanç-Pan. 2021. “Gender, Race and Power: An Intersectional Reading of “Opting Out”.” Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 16 (3/4): 658–673. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-02-2019-1724
   Google Scholar
• Mohanty, C. T. 2003. Feminism Without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Montague, J., E. Phillips, F. Holland, and S. Archer. 2020. “Expanding Hermeneutic Horizons: Working as Multiple Researchers and with Multiple Participants.” Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences 1 (1): 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/2632084320947571
   Google Scholar
• Murtagh, N., P. Lopes, and E. Lyons. 2007. “What Makes a Career Barrier a Barrier?” Industrial and Commercial Training 39 (6): 332–339. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850710816818
   Google Scholar
• Oksala, J. 2004. “What Is Feminist Phenomenology.” Radical Philosophy 126 (July/Aug): 16–22.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Prasad, A., P. Segarra, and C. E. Villanueva. 2020. “Situating Knowledges Though Feminist Objectivity in Organization Studies: Donna Haraway and the Partial Perspective.” In Rethinking Culture, Organization and Management, edited by R. Mcmurray, and A. Pullen, 73–87. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Preissle, J. 2007. “Feminist Research Ethics.” In Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis, edited by S. Hesse-Biber, 515–534. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sai, L., G. Gao, E. Mandalaki, L. E. Zhang, and J. Williams. 2024. “Co-Constructing New Ways of Working: Relationality and Care in Post-Pandemic Academia.” Culture and Organization. in press. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2024.2323726
   Google Scholar
• Sanchez De Miguel, M., I. Lizaso, M. Larranaga, and J. J. Arrospide. 2015. “Women Bus Drivers and Organizational Change.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 28 (1): 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-07-2013-0120
   Google Scholar
• Saukko, P. 2003. Doing Research in Cultural Studies: An Introduction to Classical and new Methodological Approaches. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Seidman, I. 2006. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sengupta, A., S. Mittal, and K. Sanchita. 2022. “How Do Mid-Level Managers Experience Data Science Disruptions? An in-Depth Inquiry Through Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA).” Management Decision 60 (2): 320–343. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2020-0099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidani, Y. M., and J. Thornberry. 2010. “The Current Arab Work Ethic: Antecedents, Implications, and Potential Remedies.” Journal of Business Ethics 91 (1): 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0066-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, J. A., P. Flowers, and M. Larkin. 2009. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. 2nd ed. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J. A., and M. Osborn. 2003. “Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.” In Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods, edited by J. A. Smith, 51–80. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Steyaert, C., and D. Hjorth. 2002. “Thou Art a Scholar, Speak to It … ’ on Spaces of Speech: A Script.” Human Relations 55 (7): 767–797.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tadros, M. 2018. “The Pitfalls of Disentangling Women’s Agency from Accountability for Gender Equality Outcomes: The Case of Egypt.” Feminist Dissent 3: 57–87. https://doi.org/10.31273/fd.n3.2018.307
   Google Scholar
• Thurston, M. 2014. ““They Think They Know What’s Best for Me”: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of the Experience of Inclusion and Support in High School for Vision-Impaired Students with Albinism.” International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 61 (2): 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2014.905054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tracy, S. J. 2010. “Qualitative quality: Eight “Big-Tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research.” Qualitative Inquiry 16 (10): 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tufford, L., and P. Newman. 2012. “Bracketing in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Social Work 11 (1): 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vachhani, S. J., and A. Pullen. 2019. “Ethics, Politics and Feminist Organizing: Writing Feminist Infrapolitics and Affective Solidarity Into Everyday Sexism.” Human Relations 72 (1): 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718780988
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Manen, M. 1990. Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. London, Ontario: Althouse Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Manen, M. 2014. Phenomenology of Practice: Meaning-Giving Methods in Phenomenological Research and Writing. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Van Manen, M. 2017. “But Is It Phenomenology?” Qualitative Health Research 27 (6): 775–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317699570
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vannini, P. 2008. “Situatedness.” In The SAGE Encyclopaedia of Qualitative Research Methods, edited by L. M. Given, 816–816. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• World Economic Forum. 2022. Global Gender Gap Report 2022. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2022.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Zattoni, A., T. Douglas, and W. Judge. 2013. “Developing Corporate Governance Theory Through Qualitative Research.” Corporate Governance: An International Review 21 (2): 119–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12016
   Google Scholar