Paper short abstract:

Seeking to research failure raises questions about the selection of interlocutors. If suspected in the business world, the authenticity of their experience can be prone to question. Do actors’ self-descriptions have to be taken for granted or who or what decides who has really failed?

Paper long abstract:

Originating in an interest in how people deal with experiences of failure, my research has led me into a field where speakers share their failure stories with an audience, live and on stage. These so called "fuckup-events” aim to work against a hegemonial culture of stigmatization of failure. At first glance, this can be complacently read as ‘on the right side’. However, it demonstrates its contentiousness within the scientific community when the cultural and social setting of this seemingly trendy way of dealing with failure is revealed: Startups, Entrepreneurship, Business, Life Coaching. ‘If you really want to learn about failure, you have to look elsewhere.’

Whether it is the labelling of the actors as an epitome of the neoliberal (generally ‘disliked’), the reference to other fields in which the subject matter is perceived to be more ‘obvious’, or the normative rule that research attention should invariably be paid bottom-down: The selection or the authenticity of the interlocutors is contested. Is it naïve to set the actors’ self-description as ‘failed’ as a premise for research or does it follow a sacrosanct rule of ethnography? Is transgressing this rule a critical approach or the attitude of a normative investigator distinguishing between real/fake?

Following research on emotions this paper seeks not to scrutinize authenticity per se, but rather the conditions by which subjects are classified authentically failed. Reactions to the research topic, my anticipations, and defenses, provide fruitful insights into how the failed are dealt with.