This chapter starts with a discussion of Hume’s regularity theory of causality, which argues that the idea of necessary connection between two events (i.e., cause and effect) cannot be derived from observing the events and must be derived from an internal impression. Simply put, a causal relation is a mere constant conjunction of events. A counterfactual analysis of causation is based on Hume’s remark that if the cause did not occur, the effect would not exist. Lewis develops the analysis using the concept of possible world. In contrast to Hume’s deterministic view of causation, a probabilistic approach argues that causes raise the probability of − but do not necessarily lead to − their effects. Causal graph modeling and vector spacing modeling are two major techniques of identifying causal relations from empirical data, with the latter being more suitable for management research. A mechanism is a causal chain producing the effect of interest, and process tracing is a technique for identifying mechanisms in qualitative research.

The underpinning intellectual rationale of this book, which was outlined in the previous chapters, is linked to different ways of thinking and researching not only in terms of theory and content, but also through specific research methods and alternative ways of presenting and publishing academic work. I believe that this is how we can challenge the status quo in terms of style, format and content of our research; how we can form critical perspectives on the ways we relate to each other and other lifeworlds; and how we can become activists and catalysts for change, in the manner we recognize and inhabit spaces, to expose marginalized experiences in and of organizations. Indeed, Rhodes (2019, 34) reflects on ‘scriptologies’ as political acts. Through a human-focused mind frame, relevant epistemologies and methods, we can embody and transfer on paper emancipatory impulses, communicate experiences that are politically engaged and stress emotional upheaval. This allows us to question, challenge and change the traditional, patriarchal, ‘objective’ and desensitized way of writing in and of organizations (Boncori and Smith, 2019). In terms of research paradigms, critical or interpretive approaches are the most suitable to investigations that favour subjective, qualitative studies of sense-making for individuals, communities and cultures (for more information see Bell and Thorpe, 2013; Bryman, Bell and Harley, 2019).

Qualitative approaches

Edward Sapir argued that the ‘true locus of culture is in the interactions of specific individuals, and, on the subjective side, in the world of meanings which each one of these individuals may unconsciously abstract for himself from his participation in these interactions’ (Sapir, 1961, 151). Researching and writing differently often revolves around these personal interactions and experiences that bring together the affective, embodied and cognitive aspects of life. This points us firmly towards specific ontological and epistemological positions. By ontology I mean the approach taken to the understanding of being and becoming, and how things or people relate to each other; while epistemology is about the nature of knowledge and how we go about knowing and making sense of phenomena. These positions or stances taken by researchers in terms of ontology and epistemology are quite fundamental and underpin everything else in their inquiries, cascading down to inform the choice of methodology and methods in one’s research.

The inspiration for this book was born out of my engagement with texts, approaches, collaborations and practices connected with ‘writing differently’ – a phrase which has become increasingly common and has accrued a plethora of meanings. The starting ground for the reflections provided in this manuscript are today’s neoliberal academic context, and feminist perspectives on researching and being an academic.

In the spirit of embracing difference and opening up possibilities of researching and writing that go against rigid preconceptions of what academic research and publishing must look like, this book is written to blur traditional boundaries of academic volumes. As such, this book is both an academic monograph and a volume on methods; it engages with theory while being firmly rooted in a practical approach. It is not intended to provide a review of the writing differently literature, but it offers several contemporary and ante litteram exemplars to help the reader engage with the relevant conversations. Borrowing from Heather Höpfl (2007, 619) these are the intention, the spirit and the execution of this book:

The aims of this volume are: to discuss why researching and writing differently are important in today’s academic context; to frame researching and writing differently as a political and feminist project; to offer an exploration of the meanings of ‘writing differently’, together with some examples; to provide reflections on various academic processes that can be done differently in line with feminist approaches; to investigate some of the qualitative methods and approaches that are often used in researching and writing differently; and finally to discuss some practical aspects linked with researching and publishing differently.

Rooted in the social sciences, this book is heavily influenced by approaches in the humanities and interdisciplinary perspectives. As such, although it pivots around conversations in management and organization studies, this approach to researching and writing differently is relevant to other fields of inquiry.

In this first section, contemporary academic discourses are located within the neoliberal landscape. The particular juncture of time, space and status of academia today is generating or reinforcing competitive and masculine approaches to researching, which I believe have made the need to rethink the way we inhabit academia even more urgent. It is important to consider this landscape, because when we write it is never in isolation, even when we do it on our own – we write against the backdrop of a specific system and its sociocultural, professional or financial implications. Within this context, I offer an overview of the main characteristics of contemporary neoliberal academia and focus on some key factors – for example, the need to perform and publish according to traditional masculine understandings of research and the overarching hegemony of masculine metrics. From this discussion will emerge why researching and writing differently can be considered and used as a tool for challenging the status quo, and why it is a particularly important project now.

Neoliberal academia

Neoliberalism can be understood as a system guided by market principles, which are then reinforced and given a legitimate space. In its interface and interlacing with academia, neoliberalism stems from a ‘form of reason that configures all aspects of existence in economic terms’ (Brown, 2015, 17). Hence, in an increasing number of countries worldwide, even higher education institutions founded on non-economic principles and focusing on education and research are now conceived of as market players serving customers through the creation and promotion of products, aiming to maximize income, and valuing ‘enterprise and investment’ (Rhodes, 2017, 25). Indeed, due to lack of governmental funding and other sociopolitical dynamics at the national and international level, many universities are today run like businesses (Tuchman, 2009). In ‘Education in the liquid-modern setting’ (2009) and ‘Educational challenges of the liquid-modern era’ (2003), Zygmunt Bauman provides an outline of ‘liquid modernity’, and explores the particular issues that it raises for education and academics. One of the key concerns in contemporary neoliberal ‘liquid academia’ is the notion of what universities, education and research are for, and whether these should be considered as an investment that students make to improve their future currency in the job market, and as products that students as customers are able to consume.

Time and movement

Another aspect of writing differently that can be reflected on before, during and after the creation of an output, rather than in the content of research itself, is the dynamic between time and movement. Inextricably bound with emotions and embodiment, time and movement can be useful to reflect on when writing differently. Time in relation to publication is often thought of in terms of how long it takes to get a paper published from the time of submission, or within each round of reviews. However, we can open up the time considerations to delve deeper into our approach to writing. Jenny Helin (2020) insightfully encourages us to ‘write vertically’ and reflect on the time of our writing. Writing differently is linked to movement and temporality. The latter stems from the fact that ‘to write is to move and being moved in time’ (Helin, 2020, 2). This can be considered horizontally – linear storytelling, chronological order of events, a flow moving from past to present – but also in more fluid ways; for example, through memory, thought and recognition.

Time is also linked to growth and development in research, so I have been considering the reinterrogation of data used in previous studies and the questioning of my ‘old’ analysis – would the academic I am today interpret the data in a similar way, or would the knowledge and experience I have accumulated since that study allow me to generate new insights and shed new light onto previous studies? Based on today’s focus on producing ‘on-trend’ scholarship, collecting and analysing up to date data and the production of new research contributions, I am not sure if this practice would be widely accepted for publication in management and organization studies. And yet, when we review literature and cite studies in our writing, we tend to jump through time in non-linear ways – both in terms of years captured next to in-text citations, decades identified with certain research strands or developments, but also possibly in terms of stages of intellectual development of the authors. So it is useful to consider the cycles and juxtapositions of times within our research and publications, not only in terms of the currency of data or the research life cycle, but also the more hidden dynamics of time within those research practices.

This last chapter will consider a number of practical ways in which scholars who are interested in researching and writing differently can engage with it from the very beginning of their research journey. First, the chapter provides some reflection on the meaning of failure in the context of academia, researching and writing differently. Caring spaces and collective practices around writing differently will be presented as ways to foster growth and community building. I will also outline a number of practical aspects that are especially relevant for doctoral students and early-career researchers, starting with reflections on writing a doctoral study differently and publishing (journal articles, chapters and books). Finally, I address the impact that researching and writing differently can have on scholars themselves, before offering some concluding thoughts on the key points discussed in the book.

Embracing failure and creating caring spaces

Failure is an inevitability of academia, and one that I feel we are not prepared enough for as doctoral students or early-career researchers. I do not mean to be unnecessarily negative, but failure is something that needs to be accepted as an integral part of the process of working in today’s academia. What is deemed to be ‘failure’ in contemporary neoliberal academia, and from whose perspective? Failure to get published, to get our texts accepted; failure to attract funding, or to get promoted; failure to be able to truly experience academic freedom; failure to enable ourselves and others to break away from unhealthy workplace dynamics; failure to find the time to read and think among a myriad of administrative tasks. The management and leadership literature itself, together with practitioner training and motivational speakers, have thrived on lessons based on the rejection of failure, strategies to avoid it and ways to mask it. Even in academia, somehow failure seems to only be embraced when it turns into a heroic narrative – like an academic entrepreneur who failed but never gave up on her idea and finally became a billionaire; a scientist who dedicated her whole life to finding a cure, failed innumerable times but then succeeded; the novel writer who approached a hundred publishers and got rejected by every one before finding a way to release her beautiful stories into the world and become internationally acclaimed. However, very often in real life there is no redemption to failure. And that’s OK.

In this chapter, I now turn to writing differently in terms of the content of our researching and writing practice. Alison Pullen writes: ‘I write to speak. Writing extends me, it reaches well beyond the confines of myself. At a very basic level, I would like my writing to speak from me, of me, when I am able to’ (Pullen, 2018, 123). Indeed, writing extends us and helps us to reach beyond ourselves and the current status quo. This chapter explores key aspects of this by discussing some examples of Writing Differently and writing differently – as a movement and as an academic project. This is not intended as a review of the literature on writing differently, and as such the inclusion of materials is limited, subjective and by no means exhaustive. It is not aimed at defining the contours and boundaries of what writing differently means, but rather to provide a collection that hopes to inspire. I will first discuss some common aspects of writing differently, and then focus on a few themes that have been particularly relevant across research that is written differently. It should be noted that while the writing differently community, albeit growing, can still be considered as occupying a niche space, many scholars in the social sciences and humanities have provided great examples of theorizing and Writing Differently ante litteram and beyond labels, or work that is empathetic to the ethos and approaches to writing differently.

What is writing differently?

As I mentioned in the Introduction, writing differently has become increasingly popular over the last decade, and the phrase has been used to refer to a process, a perspective, an ethos, a methodology, a type of scholarship and a scholarly movement (in this latter acception the term has been capitalized here). The term ‘differently’ implies a comparison with something, and in this book is used to highlight ways of being, thinking, reading, writing and researching in academia that go against or in parallel to more mainstream and traditional ways of inhabiting research and academic work. My perspective stems from management and organization studies, but it can apply or be articulated across a variety of fields of inquiry where there is a dominant notion of what academic work and writing should look like that marginalizes different or dissenting voices.