becker howard

8/12/2019 Becker Howard

1/15

The Epistemology of Qualitative Researchi

Howard S. Becker

Qualitative

and

Quantitative

Itisrhetoricallyunavoidable,discussingepistemologicalquestionsinsocialscience,to

comparequalitativeandethnographicmethodswiththosewhicharequantitativeand

survey:tocompare,imaginatively,afieldstudyconductedinacommunityororganizationwitha

surveyofthatsamecommunityororganizationundertakenwithquestionnaires,selfadministered

orputtopeoplebyinterviewerswhoseethemonce,armedwithaprintedformtobefilledout.

Theverythemeofthisconferenceassumessuchadivision.

Supposingthatthetwowaysofworkingarebasedondifferentepistemologicalfoundations

andjustificationsleadstoaskingthequestionposedtomebytheconference'sorganizers:Whats

theepistemologyofqualitativeresearch?Tome,itsanoddquestion.Imanintellectual

descendantofRobertE.Park,thefounderofwhathascometobecalledtheChicagoSchoolof

sociology.Parkwasagreatadvocateofwhatwenowcallethnographicmethods.Buthewas

equallyaproponentofquantitativemethods,particularlyecologicalones.Ifollowhiminthat,and

tomethesimilaritiesbetweenthesemethodsareatleastas,andprobablymore,importantand

relevantthanthedifferences.Infact,Ithinkthatthesameepistemologicalargumentsunderlieand

providethewarrantforboth.

Howso?Bothkindsofresearchtrytoseehowsocietyworks,todescribesocialreality,to

answerspecific

questions

about

specific

instances

of

social

reality.

Some

social

scientists

are

interestedinverygeneraldescriptions,intheformoflawsaboutwholeclassesofphenomena.

Othersaremoreinterestedinunderstandingspecificcases,howthosegeneralstatementsworked

outinthiscase.Buttheresalotofoverlap.

Thetwostylesofworkdoplacedifferingemphasisontheunderstandingofspecifichistorical

orethnographiccasesasopposedtogenerallawsofsocialinteraction.Butthetwostylesalso

implyoneanother.Everyanalysisofacaserests,explicitlyorimplicitly,onsomegenerallaws,and

everygenerallawsupposesthattheinvestigationofparticularcaseswouldshowthatlawatwork.

Despitethedifferingemphases,itallendsupwiththesamesortofunderstanding,doesntit?

Thatkindofecumenicismclearlywontdo,becausetheissuedoesnotgoaway.Topointtoa

familiarexample,althougheducationalresearchershavedoneperfectlygoodresearchinthe

qualitativestyleforatleastsixtyyears,theystillholdperiodicconferencesanddiscussions,likethis

one,todiscusswhetherornotitslegitimateand,ifitis,whyitis.Surelytheremustbesomereal

epistemologicaldifferencebetweenthemethodsthataccountsforthiscontinuinginabilityto

settlethequestion.

iAn earlier version of this article appeared in R. Jessor, A. Colby, and R. Shweder (1996), Ethnography andHuman Development: Context and meaning in Social Inquiry (University of Chicago Press).


2/15

Some

Thoughts

About

Epistemology

Let'sfirststepback,andaskaboutepistemologyasadiscipline.Howdoesitseeitsjob?What

kindsofquestionsdoesitraise?Likemanyotherphilosophicaldisciplines,epistemologyhas

characteristicallyconcerneditselfwithoughtsratherthaniss,andsettleditsquestionsby

reasoningfrom

first

principles

rather

than

by

empirical

investigation.

Empirical

disciplines,

in

contrast, haveconcernedthemselveswithhowthingsworkratherthanwhattheyoughttobe,

andsettledtheirquestionsempirically.

Sometopicsofphilosophicaldiscussionhaveturnedintoareasofempiricalinquiry.Scholars

oncestudiedbiologyandphysicsbyreadingAristotle.Politics,anotherareaphilosophersonce

controlled,waslikewiseaninquiryinwhichscholarssettledquestionsbyreasoningratherthanby

investigation.Wecanseesomeareasofphilosophy,amongthemepistemology,goingthroughthis

transformationnow,givinguppreachingabouthowthingsshouldbedoneandsettlingforseeing

howtheyareinfactdone.

Aesthetics,forinstance,hastraditionallybeenthestudyofhowtotellartfromnonartand,

especially,how

to

tell

great

art

from

ordinary

art.

Its

thrust

is

negative,

concerned

primarily

with

catchingundeservingcandidatesforthehonorifictitleofartandkeepingsuchpretendersout.The

sociologyofart,theempiricaldescendantofaesthetics,givesuptryingtodecidewhatshouldand

shouldntbeallowedtobecalledart,andinsteaddescribeswhatgetsdoneunderthatname.Part

ofitsenterpriseisexactlytoseehowthathonorifictitleartisfoughtover,whatactionsit

justifies,andwhatusersofitcangetawaywith.(SeeBecker1982,pp.13164.)

Epistemologyhasbeenasimilarlynegativediscipline,mostlydevotedtosayingwhatyou

shouldntdoifyouwantyouractivitytomeritthetitleofscience,andtokeepingunworthy

pretendersfromsuccessfullyappropriatingit.Thesociologyofscience,theempiricaldescendantof

epistemology,givesuptryingtodecidewhatshouldandshouldntcountasscience,andtellswhat

peoplewho

claim

to

be

doing

science

do,

how

the

term

is

fought

over,

and

what

people

who

win

therighttouseitcangetawaywith.(Latour1987)

So:thispaperwillnotbeanothersermononhowweoughttodoscience,andwhatwe

shouldntbedoing,andwhatevilswillbefallusifwedotheforbiddenthings.Rather,itwilltalk

abouthowethnographershaveproducedcredible,believableresults,especiallythoseresults

whichhavecontinuedtocommandrespectandbelief.

Suchanenterpriseis,tobephilosophical,quiteAristotelian,inlinewiththeprogramofthe

Poetics,whichundertooknottolegislatehowatragedyoughttobeconstructedbutrathertosee

whatwastrueoftragedieswhichsuccessfullyevokedpityandterror,producingcatharsis.

EpistemologistshaveoftenpretendedtosuchAristoteliananalysis,butmoretypicallydeliver

sermons.

Why

Do

We

Think

Theres

a

Difference?

Twocircumstancesseemlikelytoproducetheallegeddifferencesbetweenqualitativeand

quantitativeepistemologistsofsocialsciencemakesomuchof.Oneisthatthetwosortsof

methodstypicallyraisesomewhatdifferentquestionsatthelevelofdata,onthewayto

generalizationsaboutsociallife.Surveyresearchersuseavariantoftheexperimentalparadigm,


3/15

lookingfornumericaldifferencesbetweentwogroupsofpeopledifferingininterestingwaysalong

somedimensionofactivityorbackground.Theywanttofindthatadolescentswhoseparentshave

jobsofahighersocioeconomicstatusarelesslikelytoengageindelinquency,ormorelikely,or

whateveradifferencefromwhichtheywilltheninferotherdifferencesinexperienceor

possibilitiesthatwillexplainthedelinquency.Theargumentconsistsofanexplanationofan

actbasedonalogicofdifferencebetweengroupswithdifferenttraits.(Cf.Abbott1992)

Idontmeantooversimplifywhatgoesoninsuchwork.Theworkingoutofthelogiccanbe,

andalmostalwaysis,muchmorecomplicatedthanthis.Researchersmaybeconcernedwith

interactioneffects,andwiththewaysomevariablesconditiontherelationsbetweenother

variables,inallthisstrivingforacomplexpictureofthecircumstancesattendingsomeone's

participationindelinquency.

Fieldworkersusuallywantsomethingquitedifferent:adescriptionoftheorganizationof

delinquentactivity,adescriptionwhichmakessenseofasmuchaspossibleofwhattheyhaveseen

astheyobserveddelinquentyouth.Whoarethepeopleinvolvedintheactinquestion?Whatwere

theirrelationsbefore,during,andaftertheevent?Whataretheirrelationstothepeoplethey

victimize?To

the

police?

To

the

juvenile

court?

Fieldworkers

are

likewise

interested

in

the

histories

ofevents:howdidthisstart?Thenwhathappened?Andthen?Andhowdidallthateventuallyend

upinadelinquentactoradelinquentcareer?Andhowdidthissequenceofeventsdependonthe

organizationofallthisotheractivity?

Theargumentrestsontheinterdependenceofalotofmoreorlessprovedstatements.The

pointisnottoprove,beyonddoubt,theexistenceofparticularrelationshipssomuchasto

describeasystemofrelationships,toshowhowthingshangtogetherinawebofmutualinfluence

orsupportorinterdependenceorwhathaveyou,todescribetheconnectionsbetweenthe

specificstheethnographerknowsbyvirtueofhavingbeenthere.(Seethediscussionin(Diesing

1971.)Beingthereproducesastrongbeliefthatthevariedeventsyouhaveseenareallconnected,

whichisnotunreasonablesincewhatthefieldworkerseesisnotvariablesorfactorsthatneedto

berelated

but

people

doing

things

together

in

ways

that

are

manifestly

connected.

After

all,

its

thesamepeopleanditsonlyouranalysisthatproducestheabstractanddiscretevariableswhich

thenhavetobeputbacktogether.Sofieldworkmakesyouawareoftheconstructedcharacterof

variables.(Whichisnottosaythatweshouldnevertalkvariabletalk.)

Aseconddifferencewhichmightaccountforthepersistentfeelingthatthetwomethods

differepistemologicallyisthatthesituationsofdatagatheringpresentfieldworkers,whetherthey

seekitornot,withalotofinformation,whethertheywantitornot.Ifyoudoasurvey,youknow

inadvancealltheinformationyoucanacquire.Theremaybesomesurprisesintheconnections

betweentheitemsyoumeasure,buttherewillnotbeanysurprisedata,thingsyoudidntask

aboutbutweretoldanyway.Apartialexceptiontothismightbetheuseofopenendedquestions,

buteven

such

questions

are

usually

not

asked

in

such

away

as

to

encourage

floods

of

unanticipateddatasuggestingnewvariables.Infact,theactualworkingsofsurveyorganizations

discourageinterviewersfromrecordingdatanotaskedforontheforms.(Cf.Peneff1988)

Incontrast,fieldworkerscannotinsulatethemselvesfromdata.Aslongastheyareinthe

fieldtheywillseeandhearthingswhichoughttobeenteredintotheirfieldnotes.Iftheyare

conscientious,orexperiencedenoughtoknowthattheyhadbetter,theyputitallin,evenwhat

theythinkmaybeuseless,andkeepondoingthatuntiltheyknowforsurethattheywillneveruse


4/15

dataoncertainsubjects.Theythusallowthemselvestobecomeawareofthingstheyhadnot

anticipatedwhichmayhaveabearingontheirsubject.Theyexpecttocontinuallyaddvariables

andideastotheirmodels.Insomeways,thatistheessenceofthemethod.

Many

Ethnographies

Thevarietyofthingscalledethnographicarentallalike,andinfactmaybeatoddswitheach

otheroverepistemologicaldetails.Inwhatfollows,Iwillconcentrateontheoldertraditions(e.g.,

participantobservation,broadlyconstrued,andunstructuredinterviewing)ratherthanthenewer,

moretrendyversions(e.g.,hermeneuticreadingsoftexts),eventhoughthenewerversionsare

moreinsistentontheepistemologicaldifferences.WhatIhavetosaymaywellbereadbysomeas

notthefulldefenseofwhattheydotheywouldmake.Sobeit.I'llleaveittolessmiddleofthe

roadtypestosaymore.(Iwillhowevertalkaboutethnographersorfieldworkerssomewhat

indiscriminately,lumpingtogetherpeoplewhomightprefertokeptseparate.)

Alotofenergyiswastedhashingoverphilosophicaldetails,whichoftenhavelittleornothing

todowithwhatresearchersactuallydo,soIllconcentratelessontheoreticalstatementsandmore

onthe

way

researchers

work

these

positions

out

in

practice.

What

researchers

do

usually

reflects

someaccommodationtotherealitiesofsociallife,whichaffectthemasmuchasanyotheractor

socialscientistsstudy,byconstrainingwhattheycando.Theiractivitythuscannotbeaccounted

fororexplainedfullybyreferringtophilosophicalpositions.(Cf.Platt,unpublishedpaper)Inshort,

Imdescribingpracticalepistemology,howwhatwedoaffectsthecredibilityofthepropositions

weadvance.Ingeneral,Ithink(notsurprisinganyonebysodoing)thattheargumentsadvancedby

qualitativeresearchershaveagooddealofvalidity,butnotinthedogmaticandgeneralwaythey

areoftenproposed.SoImaypausehereandthereforafewsnottyremarksontheexcesses

ethnographerssometimesfallinto.

Afewbasicquestionsseemtolieattheheartofthedebatesaboutthesemethods:Mustwe

takeaccount

of

the

viewpoint

of

the

social

actor

and,

if

we

must,

how

do

we

do

it?

And:

how

do

we

dealwiththeembeddednessofallsocialactionintheworldofeverydaylife?And:howthickcan

weandshouldwemakeourdescriptions?

TheActor'sPointofView:Accuracy

Onemajorpointmostethnographerstoutasamajorepistemologicaladvantageofwhatthey

doisthatitletsthemgraspthepointofviewoftheactor.Thissatisfieswhattheyregardasa

crucialcriterionofadequatesocialscience.Takingthepointofviewoftheotherisawonderful

exampleofthevarietyofmeaningsmethodologicalslogansacquire.Forsome,ithasakindof

religiousorethicalsignificance:ifwefailtodothatweshowdisrespectforthepeoplewestudy.

Another

tendency

goes

further,

finding

fault

with

social

science

which

speaks

for

others,

by

givingsummariesandinterpretationsoftheirpointofview.Inthisview,itisnotenoughtohonor,

respect,andallowfortheactors'pointofview.Onemustalsoallowthemtoexpressitthemselves.

Forothers,meamongthem,thisisatechnicalpointbestanalyzedbyHerbertBlumer(1969):

allsocialscientists,implicitlyorexplicitly,attributeapointofviewandinterpretationstothe

peoplewhoseactionsweanalyze.Thatis,wealways describehowtheyinterprettheeventsthey

participatein,sotheonlyquestionisnotwhetherweshould,buthowaccuratelywedoit.Wecan

findout,notwithperfectaccuracy,butbetterthanzero,whatpeoplethinktheyaredoing,what


5/15

meaningstheygivetotheobjectsandeventsandpeopleintheirlivesandexperience.Wedothat

bytalkingtothem,informalorinformalinterviews,inquickexchangeswhileweparticipateinand

observetheirordinaryactivities,andbywatchingandlisteningastheygoabouttheirbusiness;we

canevendoitbygivingthemquestionnaireswhichletthemsaywhattheirmeaningsareorchoose

betweenmeaningswegivethemaspossibilities.Toanticipatealaterpoint,thenearerwegetto

theconditionsinwhichtheyactuallydoattributemeaningstoobjectsandeventsthemore

accurateourdescriptionsofthosemeaningsarelikelytobe.

Blumerarguedthatifwedon'tfindoutfrompeoplewhatmeaningstheyareactuallygivingto

things,wewillstilltalkabout thosemeanings.Inthatcase,wewill,ofnecessity,inventthem,

reasoningthatthepeoplewearewritingaboutmusthavemeantthisorthat,ortheywouldnot

havedonethethingstheydid.Butitisinevitablyepistemologicallydangeroustoguessatwhat

couldbeobserveddirectly.Thedangeristhatwewillguesswrong,thatwhatlooksreasonableto

uswillnotbewhatlookedreasonabletothem.Thishappensallthetime,largelybecauseweare

notthosepeopleanddonotliveintheircircumstances.Wearethuslikelytotaketheeasywayand

attributetothemwhatwethinkwewouldfeelinwhatweunderstandtobetheircircumstances,

aswhenstudentsofteenagebehaviorlookatcomparativeratesofpregnancy,andthecorrelates

thereof,and

decide

what

the

people

involved

must

have

been

thinking

in

order

to

behave

that

way.

Thefieldofdruguse,whichoverlapsthestudyofadolescence,isrifewithsucherrorsof

attribution.Themostcommonmeaningattributedtodruguseisthatitisanescapefromsome

sortofrealitythedruguserissaidtofindoppressiveorunbearable.Drugintoxicationisconceived

asanexperienceinwhichallpainfulandunwantedaspectsofrealityrecedeintothebackground

sothattheyneednotbedealtwith.Thedruguserreplacesrealitywithgaudydreamsofsplendor

andease,unproblematicpleasures,perverseeroticthrillsandfantasies.Reality,ofcourse,is

understoodtobelurkinginthebackground,readytokicktheuserintheassthesecondheorshe

comesdown.

Thiskind

of

imagery

has

along

literary

history,

probably

stemming

from

De

Quinceys

ConfessionsofanEnglishOpiumEater (DeQuincey1971).(Awonderful19thcenturyAmerican

versionisFitzHughLudlow'sTheHashishEater(Ludlow1975.)Theseworksplayontheimagery

analyzedinEdwardSaidsdissectionofOrientalia,theOrientasMysteriousOther(Said1978).

Moreuptodateversions,moresciencefictiony,lessOriental,andlessbenign,canbefoundin

suchworksasWilliamBurroughsNakedLunch(Burroughs1966).

Suchdescriptionsofdruguseare,ascouldbeandhasbeenfoundoutbygenerationsof

researcherswhobotheredtoask,purefantasyonthepartoftheresearcherswhopublishthem.

Thefantasiesdonotcorrespondtotheexperiencesofusersorofthoseresearcherswhohave

madetheexperimentsthemselves.Theyareconcoctedoutofakindofwillfulignorance.

Misinterpretationsofpeople'sexperienceandmeaningsarecommonplaceinstudiesof

delinquencyandcrime,ofsexualbehavior,andingeneralinstudiesofbehaviorforeigntothe

experienceandlifestyleofconventionalacademicresearchers.Muchofwhatanthropologicaland

ethnographicstudieshavebroughttotheunderstandingoftheproblemsofadolescenceand

growingupisthecorrectionofsuchsimpleerrorsoffact,replacingspeculationwithobservation.


6/15

Butdon'tmakeupwhatyoucouldfindouthardlyrequiresbeingdignifiedasan

epistemologicalorphilosophicalposition.Itisreallynotmuchdifferentfromamoreconventional,

evenpositivist,understandingofmethod(cf.Lieberson1992),exceptinbeingevenmorerigorous,

requiringtheverificationofspeculationsthatresearcherswillnotrefrainfrommaking.Sothefirst

pointisthatethnography'sepistemology,initsinsistenceoninvestigatingtheviewpointofthose

studied,isindeedlikethatofothersocialscientists,justmorerigorousandcomplete.(Ifindit

difficult,anddon'ttryveryhard,toavoidtheironyofinsistingthatqualitativeresearchistypically

morepreciseandrigorousthansurveyresearch,ordinarilythoughttohavetheedgewithrespect

tothosecriteria.)

Onereasonmanyresearcherswhowouldagreewiththisinprincipleneverthelessavoid

investigatingactors'viewpointsisthatthepeoplewestudyoftendonotgivestableorconsistent

meaningstothings,people,andevents.Theychangetheirmindsfrequently.Worseyet,theyare

oftennotsurewhatthingsdomean;theymakevagueandwoollyinterpretationsofeventsand

people.Itfollowsfromthepreviousargumentthatweoughttorespectthatconfusionandinability

tobedecisivebynotgivingthingsamorestablemeaningthanthepeopleinvolveddo.Butdoingso

makestheresearcher'sworkmoredifficult,sinceitishardtodescribe,letalonemeasure,sucha

movingtarget.

AnexcellentexampleoftheinstabilityofnativemeaningsisgiveninBrunoLatoursanalysis

ofscience.Conventionally,socialscientistsaccordaspecialstatustotheknowledgecreatedby

scientists,treatingitasbetterthanconventionallayknowledge,asbeingmorewarranted.Latour

notesthisparadox:scientiststhemselvesdon'talwaysregardsciencethatway.Sometimestheydo,

treatingaresultasdefinitiveandblackboxingit.Butscientistsoftenarguewitheachother,trying

tokeepothersfromputtingaresultinablackboxor,worseyet,openingblackboxeseveryone

thoughtwereshutforgood.Hisruleofmethodis:weshouldbeasundecidedastheactorswe

study.Iftheythinkaconclusion,afindingoratheoryisshaky,controversial,oropentoquestion,

thenweshouldtoo.Andweshoulddothatevenifwhatwearestudyingisanhistorical

controversywhoseoutcomewenowknow,eventhoughtheactorsinvolvedatthetimecouldn't.

Conversely,iftheactorsinvolvedthinkthepieceofscienceinvolvedisbeyondquestion,soshould

we.

Peoplewhowriteaboutscienceprescriptivelyepistemologistscouldavoidmisconstruing

theideasofthosetheystudyiftheyfollowedthesimplerulesanthropologistshaveinventedfor

themselvesaboutfieldwork.Itwasoncethoughtgoodenoughtovisityourtribeforamonthor

twointhesummerandtogetallyourinformationfrominformantsinterviewedwiththehelpof

translators.Noonethinksthatanymore,andnowthereisasortofminimumstandardknowthe

nativelanguage,stayayeartoeighteenmonths,usesomesortofrudimentarysampling

techniques.Appliedtothestudyofscience,theseruleswouldrequirethatepistemologistslearn

thenativelanguagefully,notjusttheHighChurchversiontrottedoutonformaloccasionsbutthe

languageof

daily

work

as

well,

not

just

the

views

of

eminent

scientists

and

those

who

speak

for

thescience,butoftheordinaryscientistswhoactuallydothework.WhichiswhatLatour1987)and

theotherstudentsofshopfloorpracticeinsciencehavedone(andwhatDiesing(1971),an

unusualepistemologist,did),andmanyothersociologistsofsciencedidnot.

Epistemologically,then,qualitativemethodsinsistthatweshouldnotinventtheviewpointof

theactor,andshouldonlyattributetoactorsideasabouttheworldtheyactuallyhold,ifwewant

tounderstandtheiractions,reasons,andmotives.


7/15

The

Everyday

World:

Making

Room

for

the

Unanticipated

Asecondpoint,similartotheemphasisonlearningandunderstandingthemeaningspeople

givetotheirworldandexperiencesinsteadofmakingthemup,isanemphasisontheeveryday

world,everydaylife,thequotidien.Thiscatchphraseappearsfrequentlyinethnographicwriting,

oftenreferring

to

the

ideas

of

Alfred

Schutz.

In

Schutz's

writings

(e.g.,

Schutz

1962),

and

in

the

elaborationsofthoseideascommonamongethnomethodologists,theeverydayworldtypically

referstothetakenforgrantedunderstandingspeoplesharewhichmakeconcertedaction

possible.Inthis,theidearesemblesthenotionofcultureonefindsinRedfield(1941)shared

understandingsmademanifestinactandartifactandthesimilaremphasisonsharedmeanings

inMeadian(GeorgeHerbertMead,thatis)thoughtasinterpretedbyBlumer.

Thegeneralideaisthatweactintheworldonthebasisofassumptionsweneverinspectbut

justacton,secureinthebeliefthatwhenwedootherswillreactasweexpectthemto.Aversion

ofthisistheassumptionthatthingslooktomeastheywouldlooktoyouifyouwerestanding

whereIamstanding.Inthisview,everydayunderstandingsrefersnotsomuchtothe

understandingsinvolved,say, intheanalysisofakinshipsystemthatthisisthewayonemust

behaveto

ones

mothers

brothers

daughter,

for

instance

but

to

the

deep

epistemological

beliefs

thatundergirdallsuchsharedideas,themetaanalysesandontologieswearenotordinarilyaware

ofthatmakesociallifepossible.

Muchtheoreticalefforthasbeenexpendedonthisconcept.Ifavorasimpler,less

controversial,moreworkadayinterpretation,eitherasanalternativeorsimplyasacomplementto

thesedeeptheoreticalmeanings.Thisisthenotionoftheeverydayworldastheworldpeople

actuallyactineveryday,theordinaryworldinwhichthethingsweareinterestedinunderstanding

actuallygoon.Asopposedtowhat?Asopposedtothesimpler,lessexpensive,lesstime

consumingworldthesocialscientistconstructsinordertogatherdataefficiently,inwhichsurvey

questionnairesarefilledoutandofficialdocumentsconsultedasproxiesforobservationofthe

activitiesand

events

those

documents

refer

to.

Mostethnographersthinktheyaregettingclosertotherealthingthanthat,byvirtueof

observingbehaviorinsituoratleastlettingpeopletellaboutwhathappenedtothemintheirown

words.Clearly,wheneverasocialscientistispresent,thesituationisnotjustwhatitwouldhave

beenwithoutthesocialscientist.Isupposethisappliesevenwhennooneknowsthatthesocial

scientistisasocialscientistdoingastudy.Anothermemberofacultwhobelievesflyingsaucers

fromotherplanetsareabouttolandis,afterall,onemorememberthecultwouldnothavehad

otherwiseand,ifthecultissmall,thatincreaseinnumbersmightaffectwhattheobserveristhere

tostudy.

But,giventhatthesituationisneverexactlywhatitwouldhavebeenotherwise,thereare

degreesof

interference

and

influence.

Ethnographers

pride

themselves

on

seeing

and

hearing,

moreorless,whatpeoplewouldhavedoneandsaidhadtheobserversnotbeenthere.

Onereasonforsupposingthistobetrueisthatethnographersobservepeoplewhenallthe

constraintsoftheirordinarysocialsituationareoperative.Considerthiscomparatively.We

typicallyassurepeopletowhomwegiveaquestionnaireorwhoweinterviewthatnoonewillever

knowwhattheyhavesaidtous,orwhichalternativesonthequestionnairetheyhavechosen.(If

wecantmakethatassurance,weusuallyworryaboutthevalidityoftheresults.)Thisinsulatesthe


8/15

peopleinterviewedfromtheconsequencestheywouldsufferifothersknewtheiropinions.The

insulationhelpsusdiscoverpeoplesprivatethoughts,thethingstheykeepfromtheirfellows,

whichisoftenwhatwewanttoknow.

Butweshouldnotjumpfromtheexpressionofaprivatethoughttotheconclusionthatthat

thoughtdeterminesthepersonsactionsinthesituationtowhichitmightberelevant.Whenwe

watchsomeone

as

they

work

in

their

usual

work

setting

or

go

to

apolitical

meeting

in

their

neighborhoodorhavedinnerwiththeirfamilywhenwewatchpeopledothingsintheplacesthey

usuallydothemwiththepeopletheyusuallydothemwithwecannotinsulatethemfromthe

consequencesoftheiractions.Onthecontrary,theyhavetotaketherapforwhattheydo,justas

theyordinarilydoineverydaylife.Anexample:whenIwasobservingcollegeundergraduates,I

sometimeswenttoclasseswiththem.Ononeoccasion,aninstructorannouncedasurprisequiz

forwhichthestudentIwasaccompanyingthatday,agoofoff,wastotallyunprepared.Sitting

nearby,Icouldeasilyseehimleaningoverandcopyinganswersfromsomeonehehopedknew

morethanhedid.Hewasembarrassedbymyseeinghim,buttheembarrassmentdidn'tstophim

copying,becausetheconsequencesoffailingthetest(thiswasatatimewhenflunkingoutof

schoolcouldleadtobeingdrafted,andmaybebeingkilledincombat)werealotworsethanmy

potentiallylowered

opinion

of

him.

He

apologized

and

made

excuses

later,

but

he

did

it.

What

wouldhehavesaidaboutcheatingonaquestionnaireorinaninterview,outoftheactualsituation

thathadforcedhimtothatexpedient?

Ouropinionsoractionsarenotalwaysregardedasinconsequentialbypeoplewestudy.Social

scientistswhostudyschoolsandsocialagenciesregularlyfindthatthepersonnelofthose

organizationsthinkofresearchassomeversionoftheinstitutionalevaluationstheyareconstantly

subjectto,andtakemeasurestomanipulatewhatwillbediscovered.Sometimesthepeoplewe

finditeasiesttointerviewareontheoutswiththeirlocalsocietyorculture,hopingtoescapeand

lookingtotheethnographerforhelp.But,thoughtheseexceptionstothegeneralpointalways

needtobeevaluatedcarefully,ethnographerstypicallymakethisamajorepistemologicalpoint:

whentheytalkaboutwhatpeopledotheyaretalkingaboutwhattheysawthemdounderthe

conditionsinwhichtheyusuallydoit,ratherthanmakinginferencesfromamoreremoteindicator

suchastheanswertoaquestiongivenintheprivacyofaconversationwithastranger.Theyare

seeingtherealworldofeverydaylife,notsomeversionofitcreatedattheirurgingandfortheir

benefit,andthisversion,theythink,deservestobetreatedashavinggreatertruthvaluethanthe

potentiallylessaccurateversionsproducedbyothermethods,whatevertheoffsettingadvantages

ofefficiencyanddecreasedexpense.

Aconsequenceoffindingoutaboutthedetailsofeverydaylifeisthatmanyeventsand

actionsturnouttohavemundaneexplanationsseldomaccountedforinourtheories.Astudentin

afieldworkclassItaughtinKansasCitystudiedlettercarriers.Undermyprodding,hetriedtofind

outwhatsortsofroutesthecarrierspreferred:whichpartsoftowndidtheychoosetoworkin

whenthey

had

achance

to

make

achoice?

Having

done

his

research,

he

invited

his

fellow

students

toguesstheanswerand,buddingsocialscientiststhattheywere,theirguessescenteredonsocial

class:thecarrierswouldprefermiddleclassareasbecausetheyweresafer;thecarrierswould

preferworkingclassareasbecausetheinhabitantswouldbeonfewermailinglistsandthusthere

wouldbelessmailtocarry;andsoon.Alltheseclever,reasonableguesseswerewrong.Whatthe

carriershetalkedtopreferred(andthisisnottosaythatothercarrierselsewheremightnothave

differentpreferencesandreasonsforthem)wereneighborhoodsthatwereflat.KansasCityishilly

andthecarrierspreferrednottoclimbupanddownastheymovedfromstreettostreet.Thisis


9/15

notanexplanationthatwouldmakesensefromastratificationpointofview;afollowerof

Bourdieu,forinstance,mightnotthinktoincludesuchaniteminasurvey.Butthatwasthereason

thecarriersgave,ahomelyreasonwaitingtobediscoveredbysomeonewholeftroomforitto

comeout.

Full

Description,

Thick

Description:

Watching

the

Margins

Ethnographerspridethemselvesonproviding dense,detaileddescriptionsofsociallife,the

kindGeertz(1974) hastaughtustorecognizeasthick. Theirprideoftenimpliesthatthefuller

thedescription,thebetter,withnolimitsuggested.Atanextreme,ethnographerstalkingof

reproducingthelivedexperienceofothers.

Thereissomethingwrongwiththisonthefaceofit.Theobjectofanydescriptionisnotto

reproducetheobjectcompletelywhybotherwhenwehavetheobjectalready?butratherto

pickoutitsrelevantaspects,detailswhichcanbeabstractedfromthetotalityofdetailsthatmake

itupsothatwecananswersomequestionswehave.Socialscientists,forinstance,usually

concentrateonwhatcanbedescribedinwordsandnumbers,andthusleaveoutallthoseaspects

ofreality

that

use

other

senses,

what

can

be

seen

and

heard

and

smelled.

(How

many

monographs

dealwiththesmellofwhatisbeingstudied,evenwhenthatisanecessaryandinteresting

component,andwhenisntit?)(Cf.Becker1986,pp.12135.)

Ethnographersusuallyhailadvancesinmethodwhichallowtheinclusionofgreater

amountsofdetail:photographs,audiorecording,videorecording.Theseadvancesnevermoveus

veryfartowardthegoaloffulldescription;thefullrealityisstillalongwayaway.Evenwhenwe

setupavideocamera,itsitsinoneplaceatatime,andsomethingscannotbeseenfromthat

vantagepoint;addingmorecamerasdoesnotaltertheargument.Evensuchasmalltechnical

matterasthefocallengthofthecamera'slensmakesabigdifference:alonglensprovidescloseup

detail,butlosesthecontextawideanglelensprovides.

Sofulldescriptionisawillofthewisp.But,thatsaid,afullerdescriptionispreferableto,

epistemologicallymoresatisfying,thanaskimpydescription.Why?Because,aswiththeargument

abouttheactor'spointofview,itletsustalkwithmoreassuranceaboutthingsthanifwehaveto

makethemupand,torepeat,fewsocialscientistsaresufficientlydisciplinedtorefrainfrom

inventinginterpretationsanddetailstheyhavenot,inonewayoranother,observedthemselves.

Takeasimpleexample.Wewanttoknowifparentsoccupationsaffectthejobchoicesadolescents

make.Wecanaskthemtowritedowntheparentsoccupationsonalineinaquestionnaire;we

cancopywhattheparentshavewrittendownsomewhere,perhapsonaschoolrecord;orwecan

gotowheretheparentsworkandverifybyourownobservationthatthisoneteachesschool,that

onedrivesabus,theotheronewritescopyinanadvertisingagency.

Isone

of

these

better

than

another?

Having

the

children

write

it

down

in

aform

is

better

becauseitischeapandefficient.Copyingitfromarecordtheparentsmademightbebetter

becausetheparentshavebetterknowledgeofwhattheydoandbetterlanguagewithwhichto

expressitthanthechildrendo.Seeingforourselveswouldstillbeopentoquestionmaybethey

arejustworkingtherethisweekbutitleaveslessroomforslippage.Wedonthavetoworry

aboutthechildsignoranceortheparentsdesiretoinflatetheirstatus.Epistemologically,Ithink,

theobservationwhichrequireslessinferenceandfewerassumptionsismorelikelytobeaccurate,

althoughtheaccuracysoproducedmightnotbeworthbotheringwith.


10/15

Abettergoalthanthicknessonefieldworkersusuallyaimforisbreadth:tryingtofind

outsomethingabouteverytopictheresearchtoucheson,eventangentially.Wewanttoknow

somethingabouttheneighborhoodthejuvenileswestudylivein,andtheschoolstheygoto,and

thepolicestationsandjailstheyspendtimein,anddozensofotherthings.Fieldworkerspickupa

lotofincidentalinformationonsuchmattersinthecourseoftheirparticipationorlengthy

interviewingbut,likequantitativeresearchers,theyoftenuseavailabledatatogetsomeidea

aboutthem.Theyusuallydothat,however,withmorethantheusualskepticism.

Itistimetomention,briefly,thewellknownissueofofficialstatisticsor,putmore

generally,thenecessityoflookingintosuchquestionsaswhyrecordsarekept,whokeepsthem,

andhowthosefactsaffectwhatsinthem.(Noneofthisisnewstohistorians,whowouldthinkof

thissimplyasamatterofseeingwhatcriticismsthesourcestheyusehavetobesubjectedto.)As

BittnerandGarfinkel1967)toldusyearsago,organizationsdontkeeprecordssothatsocial

scientistscanhavedatabut,rather,fortheirownpurposes.Thisisobviousinthecaseof

adolescents,whereweknowthatschoolattendancerecordsaremanagedinordertomaximize

statepayments;behavioralrecordsslantedtojustifyactionstakentowarddifficultkids;andtest

scoresmanipulatedtojustifytrackingandsorting.Similarly,policerecordsarekeptforpolice

purposes,not

for

researchers

hypothesis

testing.

Ethnographersthereforetypicallytreatdatagatheredbyofficialsandothersasdataabout

whatthosepeopledid:policestatisticsasdataabouthowpolicekeeprecordsandwhattheydo

withthem,dataaboutschooltestingasdataaboutwhatschoolsandtestersdoratherthanabout

studenttraits,andsoon.Thatmeansthatethnographersaretypicallyveryirreverentandthis

makestrouble.

Itmakestroublewhereotherpeopledontsharetheirreverence,buttaketheinstitution

seriouslyonitsownterms.Qualitativeresearchersareoften,thoughnotnecessarily,inakindof

antagonisticrelationshiptosourcesofofficialdata,whodontliketobetreatedasobjectsofstudy

butwanttobebelieved(IhavediscussedthiselsewhereBecker1967) undertheheadingofthe

hierarchyof

credibility).

Coda

Theresnotmuchmoretosay.Practitionersofqualitativeandquantitativemayseemtohave

differentphilosophiesofscience,buttheyreallyjustworkindifferentsituationsandaskdifferent

questions.Thepoliticsofsocialsciencecanseduceusintomagnifyingthedifferences.Butit

neednt,andshouldnt.

FurtherThoughts

Aftertheforegoinghadbeendiscussedattheconference,somepeoplefeltthattherewerestill

unresolvedquestionsthatIoughttohavedealtwith.Thequestionswereonesthatareoftenraisedand

myanswerstothemarenotreally"answers,"butratherresponseswhichdiscussthesocialsettingsin

whichsuchquestionsareaskedrathermorethanthequestionersmayhaveanticipated.

Onequestionhadtodowithhowonemightcombinewhataresometimescalledthe"two

modalities,"thequalitativeandquantitativeapproachestosocialresearch.Thereisalittleliteratureon


11/15

thisquestion,whichgenerallyendsupsuggestingadivisionoflabor,inwhichqualitativeresearch

generateshypothesesandquantitativeresearchteststhem.Thisquestionisinvariablyraised,andthis

solutionproposed,byquantitativeresearchers,whoseemtofinditanimmenseproblem,andneverby

qualitativeresearchers,whooftenjustgoaheadanddoit,notseeinganygreatproblem,inthat

followingtheleadofRobertE.Park,asIsuggestedinthepaper.

Well,why

don't

qualitative

researchers

think

it's

aproblem?

They

don't

think

it's

aproblem

because

theyfocusonquestionstobeanswered,ratherthanprocedurestobefollowed.Thelogicofthisislaid

outinenormousdetailinabookthatisnotaboutsociologyatall,GeorgePolya'sMathematicsand

PlausibleReasoning, (1954)inwhichheshowshowonecombinesinformationofallkindsinassessing

thereasonablenessofaconclusionoridea.

Andhowdoresearchersactuallygoaboutcombiningthesedifferentkindsofdata?Thisisnotan

easymattertosummarizebriefly,becausequalitativeresearchershavebeendoingthisforaverylong

time,andtherearemanyexamplesofitbeingdoneinmanypartsoftheliterature.ThomasKuhn(1970)

notedthatscientistslearntheirtradenotbyfollowingabstractproceduralrecipes,butratherby

examiningexemplarsofworkintheirfieldcommonlyregardedaswelldone.Thebestwaytoseehow

dataof

these

various

kinds

can

be

combined

is

to

examine

how

they

were

combined

in

exemplary

works.Thiswasobviouslytoolargeataskfortheconferencepaper.

ButIwillcitethreewellknownworks,andsuggestthatanalysisofthemethodsusedinthemandin

othersuchworksbeundertakenbythosewhowanttoseetheanswertothequestion.HoraceCayton

andSt.ClairDrake'sBlackMetropolis (1945)isamonumentalstudyoftheblackareasoftheSouthSide

ofChicagointhelateThirties.Itcontainsdataofeverykindimaginable,somestatistical,some

observational,allpointedtowardansweringquestionsabouttheorganizationofthatcommunity.Boys

inWhite,(1961)thestudyofmedicalstudentsseveralofusconductedinthe1950s,reliedon

observationandunstructuredinterviewstogeneratedata,butpresentedtheresultsbothinan

ethnographicformandinsimpletableswhichwere,somewhattothesurpriseofqualitativezealots,

"quantitative,"thoughwedidnotuseanytestsofsignificance,thedifferenceswepointedtobeing

grossenough

to

make

such

tests

an

unnecessary

frill.

Jane

Mercer's

Labeling

the

Mentally

Retarded

(1973)isthenearestofthesethreetothestandardcombinationoftenrecommended;sheused

communitysurveys,officialrecordsofseveralkinds,aswellasunstructuredinterviews,toarriveather

conclusionsaboutthesocialcharacterofmentalretardation.

A secondquestiondealtwith"validity,"notingthatmypaperdidnotspeaktothatquestion,but

insteadtalked(followingtheleadofPolya,alreadyreferredto)aboutcredibility.DoIreallythinkthat

that'sallthereistoit,simplymakingabelievablecase?Isn'ttheresomethingelseinvolved,namely,the

degreetowhichonehasmeasuredorobservedthephenomenononeclaimstobedealingwith,as

opposedtowhethertwoobserverswouldreachthesameresult,whichwasoneofthewayssome

peopleinterpretedmyanalysisofcredibility.

Wecomeheretoadifferencethatisreallyamatternotoflogicorscientificpractice,butof

professionalorganization,community,andculture.Theprofessionalcommunityinwhichquantitative

workisdone(andIbelievethisismoretrueinpsychologythaninsociology)insistsonaskingquestions

aboutreliabilityandvalidity,andmakesacceptableanswerstothosequestionsthetouchstoneofgood

work.Butthereareotherprofessionalcommunitiesforwhoseworkersthosearenotthemajor

questions.Qualitativeresearchers,esepciallyinsociologyandanthropology,aremorelikelytobe

concernedwiththekindsofquestionsIraisedinthebodyofmypaper:whetherdataareaccurate,in


12/15

thesenseofbeingbasedoncloseobservationofwhatisbeingtalkedaboutoronlyonremote

indicators;whetherdataareprecise,inthesenseofbeingclosetothethingdiscussedandthusbeing

readytotakeaccountofmattersnotanticipatedintheoriginalformulationoftheproblem;whetheran

analysisisfullorbroad,inthesenseofknowingaboutawiderangeofmattersthatimpingeonthe

questionunderstudy,ratherthanjustarelativelyfewvariables.Thepapercontainsanumberof

relevantexamplesofthesecriteria.

Ordinarily,scholarlycommunitiesdonotwanderintoeachother'sterritory,andsodonothaveto

answertoeachother'scriteria.Operatingwithintheparadigmacceptedintheircommunity,social

scientistsdowhattheircolleaguesfindacceptable,knowingthattheywillhavetoanswertotheir

communityforfailurestoadheretothosestandards.When,however,two(atleasttwo,maybemore)

scholarlycommunitiesmeet,astheydidinthisconference,thequestionarisesastowhoselanguage

thediscussionswillbeconductedin,andwhatstandardswillbeinvoked.Itismyobservationoverthe

yearsthatquantitativeresearchersalwayswanttoknowwhatanswersqualitativeresearchershaveto

theirquestionsaboutvalidityandreliabilityandhypothesistesting.Theydonotdiscusshowtheymight

answerthequestionsqualitativeresearchersraiseaboutaccuracyandprecisionandbreadth.Inother

words,theywanttoassimilatewhatothersdototheirwayofdoingbusinessandmakethoseother

waysanswer

their

questions.

They

want

the

discussion

to

go

on

in

their

language

and

the

standards

of

qualitativeworktranslatedintothelanguagetheyalreadyuse.

ThatdesirecanIsayinsistence? presumesastatusdifferential:AcancallBtoaccountfornot

answeringA'squestionsproperly,butBhasnosuchobligationtoA.Butthisisastatementaboutsocial

organization,notaboutepistemology,aboutpowerinheirarchicalsystems,notaboutlogic.When,

however,scholarlycommunitiesoperateindependently,insteadofbeingarrangedinaheirarchyof

powerandobligation,asispresentlythecasewithrespecttodifferingbreedsofsocialscience,their

membersneednotusethelanguageofothergroups;theyusetheirownlanguage.Therelations

betweenthegroupsarelateral,notvertical,touseaspatialmetaphor.Onecommunityisnotina

positiontorequirethattheotheruseitslanguage.

Thathas

to

some

extent

happened

in

the

social

sciences,

as

the

growth

of

social

science

(note

that

thisargumenthasademographicbase)madeitpossibleforsubgroupstoconstituteworldsoftheir

own,withtheirownjournals,organizations,presidents,prizes,andalltheotherparaphernaliaofa

scientificdiscipline.

DoesthatmeanthatI'mreducingsciencetomattersofdemographicandpoliticalweight?No,it

meansrecognizingthatthisisonemoreversionofastandardprobleminrelationsbetweenculturally

differinggroups.Tomakethatexplicit,theanalogiestoproblemsoftranslationbetweenlanguagesand

cultures(neatlyanalyzed,forinstance,inTalalAsad'spaper,"TheConceptofCulturalTranslationin

BritishSocialAnthropology"(Asad,1986),areclose.Superordinategroupsinsituationsofcultural

contact(e.g.,colonialsituations)usuallythinkeverythingshouldbetranslatedsothatitmakessensein

theirlanguage

rather

than

being

translated

so

that

the

full

cultural

difference

in

the

concepts

in

questionareretained.Theyareveryoftenpowerfulenough,atleastforawhile,torequirethatthatbe

done.

ThisproblemoftranslationbetweenculturallydiffereinggroupsiswhatKuhncalledattentiontoin

notingthatwhenthereisasubstantialparadigmdifference,asinthecaseofaparadigmshift,the

languagesinwhichscientificworkisconductedcannotbetranlsatedintooneanother.Ifthegroupsare


13/15

infactindependent,thenthereisatranslationproblemandthesamedynamicthequestion,youmight

say,ofwhosecategorieswillberespectedcomesintoplay.

Sowhatseemlikequitereasonablerequestsforalittleclarificationaretheplayingoutofafamiliar

ritual,whichoccurswheneverquantitativeworkersineducation,psychology,andsociologydecidethat

theywillhavetopayattentiontoworkofotherkindsandthentrytocooptthatworkbymakingit

answerto

their

criteria,

criteria

like

reliability

and

validity,

rather

than

to

the

criteria

Iproposed,

commonlyusedbyqualitativeworkers.IwouldsaythatIwasn'tnotdealingwithvalidity,butwas,

rather,dealingwithsomethingelsethatseemsasfundamentaltomeasvaliditydoestoothers.

Thiswillallsoundatoddswithmyfundamentalbelief,expressedinthepaper,thatthetwostylesof

workactuallysharethesame,oraverysimilar,epistemology.Idobelievethat'strue.ButIalsothink

thatsomeworkersgetfixatedonspecificprocedures(notthesamethingasepistemology),actasIhave

describedwithrespecttothoseprocedures,andhavethissamefeelingthatotherstylesofworkmust

bejustifiedbyreferencetohowtheywelltheyaccomplishwhatthoseproceduresaresupposedto

accomplish.

Finally,some

people

asked

how

one

could

tell

good

from

bad

or

better

from

worse

in

qualitative

work.I'vealreadysuggestedoneanswerinthecriteriaalreadydiscussed.Workthatisbasedoncareful,

closeupobservationofawidevarietyofmattersthatbearonthequestionunderinvestigationisbetter

thanworkwhichreliesoninferenceandmoreremotekindsofobservations.That'sacriterion.One

reasonStreetCornerSociety (Whyte,1981)iswidelyrecognizedasamasterworkofsocialscience

researchisthatitsatisfiesthiscriterion;WilliamFooteWhyteknewwhathewastalkingabout,hehad

observedthesocialorganizationheanalyzedinminutedetailoveralongtime,andhadlookednotonly

attheinteractionsofafew"corner"boys,butalsoattheoperationofmuchlargerorganizationsin

politicsandcrime,whichimpingedonthecornerboys'lives.

Butsomethingelseneedstobesaid.ManypeoplewhoarequicktorecognizethequalityofWhyte's

workorofErvingGoffman'sstudiesofsocialorganization,arejustasquicktosaythatthiskindofthing

canonly

be

done

by

specially

gifted

people,

that

only

they

can

get

these

remarkable

results

and,

thus,

thatthemethodstheyhaveusedarenotsuitableforthedevelopmentofascience.Thisrecognizes

whatmustberecognizedqualitythateveryoneknowsistherewhilemarginalizingtheenterprisethat

madethatqualitypossible.Goffmanwasindeedagiftedsocialscientist,buthisgiftsexpressed

themselveswithinatraditionofthinkingandfieldworkthatextendedfromDurkheimthroughRadcliffe

BrowntoLloydWarner,aswellasfromSimmeltoParktoHughesandBlumer.Thetraditionmadehis

workpossible.

Thatis,however,trueofgoodworkineverybranchofsocialscience,qualitativeorquantitative.

StanleyLieberson,forinstance,isagiftedquantitativeresearcher,butwhatmakeshisworkoutstanding

isnotthatheusessomeparticularmethodorthathefollowsapprovedprocedurescorrectly,butthat

hehas

imagination

and

can

smell

agood

problem

and

find

agood

way

to

study

it.

Which

is

to

say

that

tellinggoodfrombadisnotassimpleasitappears.It'seasyenoughtotellworkthat'sdonebadly,and

totellhowitwasdonebadly,andwhereitwentoffthetrack.Butthatinnowaymeansthatitis

possible,inanyversionofsocialscience,towritedowntherecipefordoingworkofthehighestquality,

workthatgoesbeyondmerecraft.That'sanotherstory.Physicists,whosomanysocialscientiststhink

toimitate,knowthat.Howcomewedon't?


14/15

Sothesearemattersthataredeeperthantheyseemtobe,inavarietyofways,andmostly,Ithink,

inorganizationalways.Ihaven't,forreasonsIhopetohavemadeclear,answeredthesequestionsas

thepeoplewhoaskedthemhoped.I'veexplainedthingsinmyterms,andIguesstheywillhavetodo

thetranslating.

References

Abbott,Andrew.Whatdocasesdo?Somenotesonactivityinsociologicalanalysis.InWhatIsACase?

ExploringtheFoundationsofSocialInquiry,ed.CharlesC.RaginandHowardS.Becker.5382.New

York:CambridgeUniversityPress,1992.

Asad,Talal.TheConceptofCulturalTranslationinBritishSocialAnthropology.InWritingCulture:The

PoeticsandPoliticsofEthnography,ed.JamesCliffordandGeorgeE.Marcus.141164.Berkeley:

UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1986.

Becker,HowardS.WhoseSideAreWeOn?SocialProblems14(Winter1967):23947.

________. ArtWorlds.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1982.

________.DoingThingsTogether.Evanston:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1986.

Becker,HowardS.,BlancheGeer,EverettC.Hughes,andAnslemL.Strauss.BoysinWhite:StudentCulturein

MedicalSchool.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1961.

Bittner,EgonandHaroldGarfinkel.GoodOrganizationalReasonsforBadOrganizationalRecords.In

StudiesinEthnomethodology,ed.HaroldGarfinkel.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:PrenticeHall,1967.

Blumer,Herbert.SymbolicInteractionism.EnglewoodCliffs,NewJersey:PrenticeHall,1969.

Burroughs,William.NakedLunch.NewYork:GrovePress,1966.

DeQuincey,Thomas.ConfessionsofanEnglishOpiumEater.ed.AlethaHayter.Harmondsworth:Penguin,

1971.

Diesing,Paul.PatternsofDiscoveryintheSocialSciences.Chicago:AldineAtherton,1971.

Drake,St.

Clair

and

Horace

Cayton.

Black

Metropolis.New

York:

Harcourt,

Brace

and

Co.,

1945.

Geertz,Clifford.TheInterpretationofCultures.NewYork:BasicBooks,1974.

Kuhn,Thomas.TheStructureofScientificRevolutions.2nded.,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1970.

Latour,Bruno.ScienceinAction.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1987.

Lieberson,Stanley.Einstein,Renoir,andGreeley:SomeThoughtsAboutEvidenceinSociology.American

SociologicalReview57(February1992):115.

Ludlow,FitzHugh.TheHashishEater.ed.MichaelHorowitz.SanFrancisco:LevelPress,1975.

Mercer,Jane.LabelingtheMentallyRetarded.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1973.

Peneff,Jean.TheObserversObserved:FrenchSurveyResearchersatWork,SocialProblems35(December,

1988):520

535.

Platt,Jennifer.TheoryandPracticeintheDevelopmentofSociologicalMethodology.(unpublishedpaper):

Polya,George.MathematicsandPlausibleReasoning.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1954.

Redfield,Robert.TheFolkCultureofYucatan.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1941.

Said,Edward.Orientalism.NewYork:Pantheon,1978.

Schutz,Alfred.CollectedPapers:VolumeI,TheProblemofSocialReality.TheHague:M.Nijhoff,1962.


15/15

Whyte,WilliamFoote.StreetCornerSociety:TheSocialStructureofanItalianSlum.3rded.,Chicago:

UniversityofChicagoPress,1981.

becker howard

Documents