Episode 17 - Michel Anteby: Access as Data

In this episode, we talk with Michel Anteby about access. In particular, the resistance that field workers may face and how such a process may, in reality, offer invaluable insights into the social world being studied. In our conversation, Michel elaborates on the challenges and promises of research settings that may be hard to access, reflects on the ethical limits of fieldwork, and shares tips about selecting and immersing oneself in the culture of occupational groups and organizations.

Michel Anteby is a Professor of Management & Organizations at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business and (by courtesy) Sociology at Boston University’s College of Arts and Sciences. He also co-leads Boston University’s Precarity Lab. Michel’s research looks at how individuals relate to their work, their occupations, and the organizations they belong to. He examines the practices people engage in at work that help them sustain their chosen cultures or identities. In doing so, his research contributes to a better understanding of how these cultures and identities come to be and manifest themselves. Studied populations have included airport security officers, anesthesiologists, clinical anatomists, factory craftsmen, ghostwriters, puppeteers, and subway drivers.

Further information:

• Anteby, M. (2024). The interloper: Lessons from resistance in the field. Princeton University Press.
• Anteby, M. (2015). Denials, Obstructions, and Silences: Lessons from Repertoires of Field Resistance (and Embrace). In Handbook of Qualitative Organizational Research (pp. 197-205). Routledge.
• Bourmault, N., & Anteby, M. (2023). Rebooting one’s professional work: The case of French anesthesiologists using hypnosis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 68(4), 913-955.
• Anteby, M., & Occhiuto, N. (2020). Stand-in labor and the rising economy of self. Social Forces, 98(3), 1287-1310.

Anteby, M. (2010). Markets, morals, and practices of trade: Jurisdictional disputes in the US commerce in cadavers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 606-638.