@article{5003a3da-b153-4f65-b496-e93a0bdff3ec,
author = {Waldemar Rapior},
title = {Dilemmas of the Living in the Research Project. Autoethnographic Report},
journal = {Culture Management},
volume = {2018},
number = {Volume 19, Issue 3},
year = {2018},
issn = {1896-8201},
pages = {211-231},keywords = {autoethnography of science; university; research project; solidarity; morality; projectification},
abstract = {Anders Fogh Jensen states that projects seem to have no value other than bringing forward change, regardless of the ethical dimension of that change. However, when living in a project and being part of the process of projectification of such institutions as universities, flesh-and-blood individuals are caught in various and often moral dilemmas. In the paper, I attempt to answer the question of how to include moral values in the analysis of project life. Do we know how to present in detail the dilemmas of a life in projects? What causes these dilemmas? I answer these questions in the autoethnographic account. In August 2015, I started a three-year scientific project entitled “Tacit morality.” At the same time, I began keeping a field diary and describing my experience within the project. Autoethnography of science, which I present here, can be run by every scientist; after all, each of us carries projects. On the basis of my field notes, I have managed to identify controversies and dilemmas which appear in projects. Having analysed them, I have come to the conclusion that the relation between a (scientific) project and a stable institution (university) should be based on values, e.g. solidarity, and institutional facilitation. I start the article with the question of how to criticize the disadvantages of projectification and at the same time notice its advantages.},
doi = {10.4467/20843976ZK.18.015.9469},
url = {https://ejournals.eu/en/journal/zarzadzanie-w-kulturze/article/dylematy-zycia-w-projekcie-naukowym-relacja-autoetnograficzna}
}