Ever since the 1990’s the authorial ‘I’ of organizational studies research has been questioned (Jeffcutt, 1994; Linstead, 1993, 1999; Kostera, 1997; Richardson, 1994). The debate challenged the invisible omniscient voice of the researcher. A researcher, who has been accused of being too reductionist, indifferent to poverty and injustice, too careerist and self-centred (Alvesson & Willmott, 1992; Clegg et al., 2006; Parker, 2002, Parker et al., 2014; Wray-Bliss, 2003). Crucially, inspired by research ethics grounded in Levinas, the ‘right’ of researchers to take the researched into their possession and to pronounce the ‘truth’ of the ‘Other’ has been contested. As organizational ethnography, often in case studies or histories, has been the most active non-positivist form of organizational research, the status of ethnography has been crucial. Inspiration came from two sides. First the anthropologists Geertz (1988, 1995), van Maanen (1988) and, Marcus and Fischer (1986), have been deeply troubled by anthropology’s (neo-)colonial identity, wherein the European voice dominated the non-European one and research (for instance in India and Indonesia) was used to strengthen repressive and undemocratic rule. And second, Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan (1979) and, further Morgan (1986) and Burrell (1997), chimed in, asserting that very different styles of researching and writing to positivist functionalism were possible. While Linstead eventually more or less abandoned the writing of organizational research for documentary film making (2017, 2018), and Jeffcutt has left academe to become a published poet (2010, 2020), Carl Rhodes (2001, 2009, 2015, 2019; Rhodes & Brown, 2005) has stuck with the theme through the period of Postmodern enthusiasm, and more lately, the re-emergence of institutionalist and functionalist dominance…