Dongjing's question

Bullis & Stout (2000) give a detailed introduction on the feminist standpoint on organizational socialization. What interested me is that the feminist Standpoint is problematic in several ways. Firstly, the search for general, universal patterns is considered not only futile but a way of ignoring important unique patterns and contexts. Secondly, the assumption of objective knowledge produced from the position of neutral researcher or observers is problematic considering the researcher’s self-positioning and particular contexts and research interest. Third, researchers use accounts of personal experience as data. Fourth, feminists insist on reflexivity in scholarship that includes the scholars’ own perspectives, interests and position in the particular study. Finally, the research is conducted to improve women’s life by enabling them to make active choices about how they encounter their words. Considering the five problematics in feminist standpoint critique, what other criteria can we get from the feminist standpoint research and make the organizational socialization study more comprehensive?

DiSanza(1995) discussed the ethnographic research of organizational assimilation in the context of systemic contradictions. This study uncovered the new comer’s entry experience in banking organizations. And Myers(2005) used the six-dimensional model of organizational assimilation as a framework to explore members ‘assimilation into a highreliability organization (HRO), which is very interesting to me. New comers in HRO develop trust and become a real part of the system would be the further question. Is Myers-Oetzel model possible to apply to varied HROs’ organizational assimilation in other cultural context considering the gender, race and class and how?