1EEE

2 What is ethnography?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2 Ethnography is one of the many approaches that can be found today in social research. In addition, the
EEE3 the label is not used entirely standard; its meaning can vary. One consequence of this is that
4 there is considerable overlap with other tags, such as 'qualitative research', 'fieldwork',
5 "interpretative method" and "case study," which also have diffuse semantic boundaries. In fact, there doesn't even exist
6
7 the 'auto/ethnography'; this refers to the study of an individual researcher of their own life and context
8 (Reed-Danahay 1997, 2001; Holman Jones 2005). There is also the challenging case of 'virtual ethnography', whose
9 data may be completely restricted to what can be downloaded from the Internet (Markham 1998, 2005; Hine
20 2000; Mann and Stewart 2000). While, for the purposes of this introductory chapter, we will have to give some indication
1 From what we understand about the meaning of the term 'ethnography', its variable nature must be remembered.

2 sometimes controversial; and the account we provide will inevitably be shaped by our own points

3 in view of what form ethnographic work should take.

4
5EEE
6
7 The origins of the term can be found in 19th century Western anthropology, where an ethnography was

8
9 the 'ethnography' was contrasted with 'ethnology' and, generally, it was considered complementary, which referred to

30 the historical and comparative analysis of non-Western societies and cultures. Ethnology was treated as the

1 the core of anthropological work and was based on individual ethnographic accounts that were initially produced
by travelers and missionaries. Over time, the term 'ethnology' fell out of favor because anthropologists
2
3
4
5
6
As a result of this change, since the beginning of the 20th century, fieldwork in ethnography has been fundamental for
7
anthropology. In fact, doing that work, generally in a society very different from one's own, became a
8
initiation rite required to enter the 'tribe' of anthropologists. Fieldwork generally required living
9
with a group of people for extended periods, often over the course of a year or more, to
40
document and interpret their distinctive way of life, as well as the beliefs and values integral to it.
1
2
Additionally, during the 20th century, anthropological ethnography became one of the models for some lines
3
of research within Western sociology. One of them was the community studies movement.
4
This involved studies of towns and cities in the United States and Western Europe, often
5
related to the impact of urbanization and industrialization. A historical investigation here was the
6
the Lynds' work documenting life in Muncie, Indiana, which they called 'Middletown' (Lynd and Lynd
7
41EEE
1929, 1937.
What is ethnography?

In a parallel development, many sociologists who worked at the University of Chicago since the 1920s
Until 1950, they developed an approach to studying human social life that was similar to research.
anthropological in some key aspects, although they often called it 'case study'. The 'Chicago School' was
worried about documenting the range of different patterns of life that can be found in the city, and how these were
shaped by the developing urban ecology.

Since the 1960s onwards, the forms of sociological work influenced by these developments,
especially by the Chicago sociology, spread through many subfields of the discipline and
also to other disciplines and areas of research; and they also emigrated from the United States to Europe and others
parts of the world. Furthermore, for various reasons, a growing number of anthropologists began to conduct
research in Western societies, initially in rural areas, but later also in the
urban areas. Another relevant advance in the second half of the 20th century was the emergence of cultural studies.
as a distinct area of research from anthropology and sociology, but which overlapped with them. The work
in this field, it moved from broadly historical and textual approaches to include the use of the ethnographic method,
especially in the study of audiences and the whole issue of cultural consumption. Furthermore, in recent decades
In the 20th century, ethnography expanded even further, for example, into psychology and human geography. In fact,
tended to be absorbed by a general, multidisciplinary movement that promotes qualitative approaches; although the
The term 'ethnography' still retains some distinctive connotations.

This complex story is one of the reasons why 'ethnography' does not have a standard meaning and
well defined. Over time, and in each of the various disciplinary contexts mentioned, its
Meaning has been reinterpreted and recontextualized in various ways to face circumstances.
particulars. Part of this remodeling has arisen from the fact that ethnography has been associated with, and
it has also opposed several other methodological approaches. Furthermore, it has been influenced by a series
theoretical ideas: anthropological and sociological functionalism, philosophical pragmatism, and interactionism
symbolic, Marxism, phenomenology, hermeneutics, structuralism, feminism, constructionism
poststructuralism and postmodernism. Increasingly,

In summary, 'ethnography' plays a complex and changing role in the dynamic tapestry it has become.
the social sciences in the 21st century. However, this term is in no way unusual because it lacks a
unique standard meaning. The uncertainty of meaning does not undermine its value as a label. And we can outline
a central definition, recognizing at the same time that it does not capture all its meaning in all contexts. When
to do this, we will focus, initially, on a quite practical level: on what ethnographers actually do, in
the type of data that is usually collected and the type of analysis implemented to handle that data. Later on,
we will expand the discussion to cover some of the ideas that have informed and continue to inform the practice
ethnographic.

1 For a description of the development and reconfiguration of ethnographic work within British anthropology,
see Macdonald (2001).
The various streams and trends of the qualitative research movement are exemplified in the various editions.
from The Manual of Qualitative Research: Denzin and Lincoln (1994, 2000, 2005).
 What is ethnography?

1EEE What do ethnographers do?

2
In terms of data collection, ethnography generally involves the researcher participating, either openly or
3
undercover, in people's daily lives for an extended period of time, observing what happens,
4
listening to what is said and/or asking questions through formal and informal interviews, collecting
5
documents and artifacts; in fact, to gather all available data to shed light on the issues that are the
6
emerging focus of research. In general, ethnographers rely on a range of data sources, although sometimes
7
8
9
10 In more detailed terms, ethnographic work usually has most of the following characteristics:

1
2 1 The actions and narratives of individuals are studied in everyday contexts, rather than in the conditions

EEE3 created by the researcher, as in experimental situations or in very structured interview situations.

4 In other words, the research takes place 'in the field.' Data is collected from a variety of sources,

5 2 including documentary evidence of various types, but participant observation and/or conversations

6 Relatively informal tend to be the main ones.

7
8 3 Data collection is, for the most part, relatively 'unstructured', in two senses. Firstly, it does not
9 it involves following a fixed and detailed research design specified at the beginning. Secondly, the
20 categories used to interpret what people say or do are not integrated into the data collection process
1 data through the use of observation programs or questionnaires. Instead, they are generated from the process of
2 data analysis.
3
4 4 In general, attention focuses on a few cases, typically on a small scale, perhaps in a single environment or group of
5EEE people. This is to facilitate an in-depth study.
6 5 Data analysis involves the interpretation of the meanings, functions, and consequences of actions
7 human and institutional practices, and how these are implicated in local contexts, and perhaps also
8 wider. What is produced, for the most part, are descriptions, explanations, and verbal theories; the
9 quantification and statistical analysis play a subordinate role at most.
30
1
2 As this list of features clarifies, in what pertains to what is referred to in methodological texts
3 "research design", ethnographers often employ a relatively open approach (see Maxwell 2004b).
4 They start with an interest in a particular area of social life. While they will generally have in mind what
5 the anthropologist Malinowski
6
- often considered the inventor of modern anthropological fieldwork - called
7 "foreseen problems", its orientation is exploratory. The task is to investigate some aspect of life
8 the people who are being studied, and this includes finding out how these people see the situations
9 that they face, how they look at each other and also how they see themselves. It is expected that the interests
40 and initial questions that motivated the research are refined, and perhaps even transformed, throughout
1 the investigation; and that this can take quite a long time. Eventually, through this process, the
2 the inquiry will progressively focus more clearly on a specific set of questions regarding
3 research, and this will allow the strategy

4
5
6
These methods may include those that are 'discrete': Lee (2000). There has been some dispute.
7 about whether ethnographic studies can be based entirely on interviews or documentary data, without observation
41EEE complementary participant. See Atkinson and Coffey (2002).
What is ethnography?

data collection to seek answers to those questions more effectively and compare them with the
evidence.
The collection of data in 'natural' environments, that is, in those that have not been configured
specifically for research purposes (such as experiments or formal interviews) also grants a
distinctive character to ethnographic work. When it comes to participant observation, the researcher must
find some role in the field being studied, and this will usually have to be done at least
through an implicit negotiation, and probably also explicit, with people in that field. It may be that
it is necessary to ensure access through guardians, but it will also have to be negotiated and renegotiated with
the people being studied; and this is true even when ethnographers study contexts in the
that are already participating. In the case of interviews, it cannot be assumed that access is available either.
automatically, relationships will need to be established,

The initially exploratory nature of ethnographic research means that it will often not be clear where,
Within a scenario, observation must begin, which actors need to be followed, etc. The strategies of
Sampling should be developed and modified as the research progresses. The same applies to the use of
interviews. In this case, decisions about whom to interview, when, and where will have to be made with the
time, and the interview will usually take a relatively unstructured form, although it can be used
more structured or strategic questions towards the end of the fieldwork. Furthermore, as already pointed out, the
Data will be collected regularly in an unstructured manner, through field notes written in terms
specifically descriptive and also through audio or video recordings, plus the collection of documents. Given the
The nature of this data will require a considerable amount of effort and time to process and analyze.
In all these aspects, ethnography is a demanding activity that requires various skills, including the ability
to make decisions under considerable uncertainty.

This is true despite the fact that, as a set of methods, ethnography does not stray far from the means that
we all use in everyday life to make sense of our environment, the actions of other people, and perhaps even to
what we do ourselves. What is distinctive is that it implies a more deliberate and systematic approach than what is
common for most of us most of the time, one in which the data is specifically searched for
clarify the research questions and they are carefully recorded; and where the analysis process is based on studies
previous and implies an intense reflection, including the critical evaluation of competing interpretations. What is
involved here, then, is a meaning development of the ordinary ways of making sense of the social world that everyone
we use in our mundane lives, in a way that is in tune with the specific purposes of producing
knowledge of research.

In the rest of this chapter, we will explore and evaluate a series of methodological ideas that have given
shapes ethnography. We will start by considering the conflict between quantitative and qualitative methods as
competing models in social research, which extended across many fields in the past and still
continues in some even today. This was often seen as a clash between philosophical positions in
competence. Following some precedent, we will call them 'positivism' and 'naturalism': the former privileges the

'Naturalism' is a term that is used in a variety of different, even contradictory, ways in literature:
See Matza (1969). Here we have simply adopted the conventional meaning within the ethnographic literature.
 What is ethnography?

1EEE ideas that have shaped the thought and practice of ethnographers, some interpretations of which are in
2 disagreement with the previous commitment to naturalism.
3
4
Positivism versus naturalism
5
6 Positivism has a long history in philosophy, but peaked in the 'logical positivism' of the
7 1930s and 1940s (Kolakowski 1972; Halfpenny 1982; Friedman 1991; Hammersley 1995: chap. 1). This
8 the movement had a considerable influence on social scientists, especially in promoting the
9 status of experimental research and surveys and the quantitative forms of analysis associated with them.
10 Before this, both in sociology and in social psychology, qualitative and quantitative techniques had been
1 generally used side by side, often by the same researchers. Nineteenth-century researchers,
2 like Mayhew (1861), LePlay (1879), and Booth (1902-3), dealt with quantitative and qualitative data as
EEE3 complementary. Even the sociologists of the Chicago School, often portrayed as exponents of the
4 participant observation, employed methods of 'case studies' and 'statistical'. Although there were recurring debates
5 Among them regarding the relative advantages and uses of the two approaches, there was a general agreement on the value.

6 of both (Bulmer, 1984; Harvey 1985; Hammersley 1989a; Deegan 2001). Only later, with the rapid

7 development of statistical methods and the growing influence of positivist philosophy, research by

8 Surveys came to be regarded by some of its practitioners as a self-sufficient methodological tradition.

9
20
1
2 Today, the term 'positivism' has become little more than a term of abuse among social scientists and, as
3 result, its meaning has become obscured. For current purposes, the main principles of positivism can be summarized as
4 the following way:
5EEE
6 1 The methodological model of social research is physical science, conceived in terms of logic.
7 of the experiment. While positivists do not claim that the methods of all physical sciences are the
8 they do argue that they share a common logic. This is the one from the experiment, where
9 manipulate variables quantitatively measured to identify the relationships between them. This logic is
30 consider the defining characteristic of science.
1
2 2 Universal laws or statistics as the objective of science. Positivists adopt a characteristic conception of the
3 explanation, generally referred to as the 'coverage law' model. Here, events are explained deductively.
4 appealing to universal laws that establish regular relationships between variables, which are maintained in all the
5 relevant circumstances. However, it is the statistical version of this model, according to which relationships have only
6 a high probability of being applied in relevant circumstances, which has generally been adopted by scientists
7 social issues; and this has fostered great concern for sampling procedures and statistical analysis,
8 especially in survey research. In this case, priority is given to the generalization of findings.
9
40
1 3 The basis of science is observation. Ultimately, positivists prioritize phenomena that are
2 directly observable or logically inferable from the observable; any appeal to the
3 intangibles runs the risk of being dismissed as metaphysical speculation. It is argued that the theories
4 scientific findings should be based on or proven by descriptions that simply correspond to the
5 state of
6
7 In social psychology, this process began quite earlier, and it was the experiment that became the
41EEE dominant method.
6 What is ethnography?

world, which does not imply theoretical assumptions and, therefore, is beyond all doubt. This basis could be
sensory information, as in traditional empiricism, or it can be the realm of the 'publicly
observable: for example, the movement of physical objects, such as mercury in a thermometer, which can
be easily accepted by all observers. Therefore, great emphasis is placed on standardization.
of data collection procedures, which aim to facilitate the achievement of measurements
stable between observers. If the measurement is reliable in this sense, it is argued, it provides a
a solid and theoretically neutral basis on which to build. This is sometimes referred to as procedural objectivity.

natural sciences and, in particular, physics (Toulmin 1972). The method here deals with the testing of theories
or hypothesis. A clear distinction is made between the context of discovery and the context of
justification (Reichenbach 1938,
1951). The question of how theoretical ideas are generated belongs to the former and is outside the scope of
scientific method. It is the procedures used in the context of justification that are upheld for
differentiate science from common sense, as it involves the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories from a
objective point of view.
Therefore, for positivists, the most important characteristic of scientific theories is that they are open to
tests and, in fact, are subject to tests: that can be confirmed, or at least falsified, with certainty. This
it requires the exercise of control over the variables, which can be achieved through physical control, as in the
experiments, or through statistical control, as in survey research. Without any control over the
variables, it is argued, one can only speculate about causal relationships, as there is no available
a basis for testing hypotheses. So, the testing process involves comparing what the theory says should happen
under certain circumstances with what really happens, in summary, compare it with 'the facts'.

These facts are collected through methods that, like the facts they gather, are considered theoretical.
neutral; otherwise, it is assumed that they could not provide conclusive evidence of the theory. In particular, they
make every effort to eliminate the observer effect through the development of an explicit set and
standardized procedures for data collection. This also allows replication by others so that it
it can conduct an assessment of the reliability of the findings. In survey research, for example, the
the behavior of the interviewers is usually specified in the wording of the questions and the order in which they are asked
They do. In the experiments, the behavior of the experimenter is closely defined. It is argued that if one can
ensure that each respondent or experimental subject of a study and their replicas face the same set of
stimuli, then their responses will be comparable. Where such explicit procedures are not used and
standardized, as in participant observation, the argument goes, it is impossible to know how to interpret the
answers, since one has no idea what answers are. a. In summary, positivists argue that it is only
through the exercise of physical or statistical control of the variables, and their rigorous measurement, that science can
to produce a body of knowledge whose validity is conclusive; and thus it can justifiably replace myths and the
dogma of traditional points of view or common sense.

Ethnography and many types of qualitative research do not conform to these positivist standards.
result, especially in the mid-20th century, arrived

At the same time, it is worth noting that Malinowski's anthropological work was influenced by
early positivist ideas: see Leach (1957) and Strenski (1982).
 What is ethnography?

1EEE under criticism for lacking scientific rigor. Ethnography was sometimes dismissed as quite inappropriate for the
2 social sciences, on the basis that the data and findings it produces are mere impressions
3 idiosyncratic and subjective of one or two cases that cannot provide a solid basis for an analysis
4 rigorous scientist. In reaction, ethnographers developed an alternative view of the very nature of the
5 social research, often referred to as 'naturalism' (Lofl and 1967; Blumer 1969; Matza 1969; Denzin)
6 1971; Schatzman and Strauss 1973; Guba 1978). Like positivism, this appealed to the natural sciences
7 as a model, but the method of the latter was conceptualized differently, and the example was
8 generally the biology of the 19th century more than the physics of the 20th century.

9
10
1
2
EEE3
4 in a way that is sensitive to the nature of the environment and the phenomena being investigated. The main objective must be
5 It is to describe what happens, how the people involved see and talk about their own actions and those of the.
6 Moreover, the contexts in which the action takes place and what follows from it.
7
8
9
20 Naturalism is "the philosophical view that remains true to the nature of the phenomenon under study."
1 This contrasts with the primary and prior commitment of positivists to a conception of the scientific method.
2 reconstructed from the experience of natural scientists:
3
4
5EEE Reality exists in the empirical world and not in the methods used to study that world; it must be
6 discovered in the examination of that world... The methods are mere instruments designed to
7 identify and analyze the stubborn nature of the empirical world and, as such, its value exists only in
8 its suitability to allow this task to be carried out. In this fundamental sense, the procedures
9 employees in each part of the scientific research act must and should be evaluated in terms of whether
30 they respect the nature of the empirical world being studied, whether it is what they mean or imply that it is the
1 nature of the empirical world. is it really the case.
2
3 (Blumer 1969: 27–8)
4
5 Therefore, a primary requirement of social research according to naturalism is fidelity to the phenomena that are
6 they study, not a particular set of methodological principles, no matter how strongly supported by the arguments
7 philosophical or by the practice of natural scientists.
8 Furthermore, naturalists consider social phenomena to be of a rather different nature from phenomena
9 physicists. In this regard, naturalism was based on a wide range of philosophical and sociological ideas, but
40 especially in symbolic interactionism, phenomenology, and hermeneutics (these are sometimes referred to
1 collectively "interpretivism"). From different starting points, all these traditions argue that the world
2 Social cannot be understood in terms of simple causal relationships or through the subsumption of social events.
3 under universal laws. This is because human actions are based on or infused with social meanings or
4 cultural, that is, by intentions, motives, beliefs, rules, discourses, and values.
5
6
7 For example, at the heart of symbolic interactionism is the rejection of the stimulus-response model of
41EEE human behavior, which is integrated into the methodological arguments.
What is ethnography?

of positivism. In the opinion of interactionists, people interpret the stimuli and these interpretations, continuously
Reviewed as events unfold, they shape their actions. As a result, the 'same' physical stimulus
it can mean different things to different people and, in fact, to the same person at different times.
many years ago, Mehan (1974) provided a striking example that is directly related to the type of method of
data collection supported by positivism:

A question from a language development test asks the child to choose 'the animal that can fly'
between a bird, an elephant, and a dog. The correct answer (obviously) is the bird. However, many
first grade children chose the elephant along with the bird as the answer to that question. When more
Later I asked them why they chose that answer, they replied: 'That's Dumbo.' Dumbo (of course) is the
flying elephant from Walt Disney, well known to children who watch television and read children's books like a
flying animal.

(Mehan 1974: 249)

Such indeterminacy of interpretation undermines efforts to develop standard measures of human behavior.
The interpretations of the same set of experimental instructions or interview questions will vary without
doubt between people and occasions; and it is argued that this undermines the value of research methods
standardized.8

Equally important, naturalists argue that because human behavior is not caused by a
mechanical way, it is not susceptible to the type of causal analysis and manipulation of variables that are characteristic of research
quantitative inspired by positivism. Any hope of discovering laws of human behavior is out of place.
suggests, since human behavior is continuously constructed and reconstructed based on interpretations of the
people in the situations they find themselves in.

According to naturalism, to understand human behavior we must use an approach that gives us
access to the meanings that guide their behavior. Fortunately, the abilities we have developed as
social actors can give us that access. As participant observers, we can learn the culture or subculture of
the people we are studying. We can come to interpret the world more or less in the same way they do.
Summary, we not only can but must also learn to understand people's behavior in a way

The need to learn the culture of those we are studying is more obvious in the case of societies
different from ours. Here, it is possible that not only do we not know why people do what they do, but we often
It is possible that we cannot even recognize what they are doing. We are in a very similar position to that of
strange from Schutz (1964): Schutz observes how, in the weeks and months following the arrival of an immigrant to a
host society, what I used to take for granted as knowledge about that society now seems unreliable. , unless it is
obviously false. Moreover, areas of ignorance that previously were not important become

7 For useful descriptions of interactionism, see Maines (2001), Atkinson and Housley (2003), and Reynolds and Herman-Kinney (2003).

8 Cooper and Dunne (2000) provide a similar and more developed analysis of the interpretative processes involved in the tests.
mathematics.
9 This way of understanding social phenomena is often referred to as Verstehen. See Truzzi (1974) for a discussion and
illustrations of the history of this concept, and O'Hear (1996) for a more recent discussion of its role in the social sciences and
the humanities.
 What is ethnography?

1EEE they acquire great significance; and overcoming them is necessary for achieving important goals, perhaps even
2 for the very survival of the stranger in the new environment. In the process of learning to participate in society of
3 welcome, the stranger gradually acquires an internal knowledge of it, which supplants his knowledge
4 "external" prior. But Schutz argues that, by being compelled to come to understand a culture of this
5 In this way, the stranger acquires a certain objectivity that is normally not available to members of the
6 culture. These last ones live within the culture and tend to see it merely as a reflection of 'how the world is'.
7 They are often unaware of the fundamental budgets that shape their vision, many of which
8 they are distinctive of their own culture.
9
10 Schutz's (1964) account of the experience of the stranger coincides more obviously with the work of the
1 anthropologists, who typically study societies very different from their own. However, the experience of the outsider
2 is not limited to those who move to live in another society. The movement among groups within the same society
EEE3 it can produce the same effects; generally, although not always, in a milder form. There are many layers or
4 different circles of cultural knowledge within any society. In fact, this is particularly true in
5 modern industrial societies with their complex divisions of labor, multiple lifestyles, diversity
6 ethnic and deviated communities; and the subcultures and perspectives that are maintained and generated by these divisions
7 social. This was, of course, one of the main foundations of the research of the sociologists of the School
8 from Chicago. Based on the analogy of plant and animal ecology, they proposed to document the very different
9 lifestyle patterns found in different parts of the city of Chicago, from the 'high society' of the so-called
20 golden coast' to the slums. ghettos like Little Sicily. Subsequently, the same type of approach was applied
1 to the cultures of occupations, organizations, and diverse social groups.
2
3
4
5EEE According to the naturalist account, the value of ethnography as a method of social research is based on the existence of such variations.

6 in cultural patterns through and within societies, and their importance for understanding social processes. Ethnography

7
8 when investigating a group or family environment, the participant observer should treat this as 'anthropologically strange', in a

9 effort to make explicit the assumptions that are taken for granted as a member of the culture. In this way, culture can

30 to become an object available for study. Naturalism proposes that through marginality, in social position and in

1 perspective, it is possible to construct a narrative of the culture under investigation that understands it from the inside and captures it as external and

2 independent of the researcher: in other words, as a natural phenomenon. Therefore, the description of cultures becomes the

3 main objective. The search for universal laws is minimized in favor of detailed accounts of the concrete experience of life within

4 from a particular culture and the beliefs and social rules that are used as resources within it. In fact, attempts to go further

5 Beyond this, for example, the search for universal laws is minimized in favor of detailed accounts of the concrete experience of life.

6 within a particular culture and the beliefs and social rules that are used as resources within it. In fact, the attempts to

7 to go beyond this, for example, the search for universal laws is minimized in favor of detailed accounts of concrete experience

8 the life within a particular culture and the beliefs and social rules that are used as resources within it. In fact, the

9 Attempts to go beyond this, for example, explain particular cultural forms, are sometimes discouraged. Certainly, as noted

40 Denzin (1971: 168), "the naturalist resists the schemes or models that overly simplify the complexity of everyday life";

1 Although some forms of theory are often recommended, especially those believed to be capable of capturing the

2 social complexity, especially the type of grounded theory proposed by Glaser and Strauss.

3
4
5
6
7 10 See Glaser and Strauss (1968); Strauss and Corbin (1998); Pidgeon and Henwood (2004); for criticism
41EEE comments, see Williams (1976) and Dey (1999).
What is ethnography?

During the last decades of the 20th century, the influence of positivism faded away, and with it, in many
areas, the mastery of the quantitative method; although currently there are some signs of a revival.
At the same time, several aspects of naturalism were attacked from within the ranks of researchers.
qualitative. In the next section we will explore the ideas that stimulated this.

Political and antirealist critiques of naturalism

The field of social research methodology today is complex. There has been a considerable
diversification in qualitative research, including the emergence of discourse analysis and narrative,
various types of action research, autoethnography, and performance studies, etc. At the same time, has
there has been a growing call to combine qualitative methods with quantitative techniques.
accused of neglecting the conflicting philosophical and political assumptions constructed in the approaches
qualitative and quantitative (Smith and Heshusius 1986; Smith 1989; Guba 1990; Hodkinson 2004). Along with this,
there have been criticisms of older forms of ethnographic work on the grounds that they still reveal the
influence of positivism and scientism. What is pointed out here is that, despite their differences,
Positivism and naturalism have a lot in common. Each appeals to the model of the natural sciences.
although interpreting it in different ways. As a result, both are committed to trying to understand the
social phenomena as objects that exist independently of the researcher. And, therefore, they affirm that the
research can provide a superior knowledge of the social world in validity than that of individuals
studied. Equally important, both consider the practical and political commitments by
researcher as, for the most part, foreign to the research process - in fact, as a source of
potential distortion whose effects must be protected to preserve objectivity.

Many ethnographers have begun to question the commitment to naturalism, challenging these
assumptions. Doubts have arisen about the ability of ethnography to portray the social world in the way
in what naturalism affirms that it does. Likewise, the commitment of the older types has been questioned.
of ethnography with some type of values neutrality, and politically recommended forms of ethnography.
interventionists. We will consider these two aspects of the criticism of naturalism separately, although sometimes
they are closely related.

Questioning realism

Many critics of naturalism today reject it on the grounds that, like positivism, it assumes that the task of
Social research is to represent social phenomena in some literal way: to document their
characteristics and explain their occurrence. What is questioned here is sometimes referred to as realism. Partly, the
critique of realism arises from a tension within ethnography between the characteristic naturalism of
methodological thinking of ethnographers and constructivism and cultural relativism that shape their
understanding the perspectives and behavior of people who study (Hammersley 1992: cap.3).
As we saw, ethnographers describe people as builders.

11 See Smith and Hodkinson (2006); Denzin and Giardina (2006).

Some have argued that mixed methods research may be a new paradigm that transcends the distinction.
among the other two: see, for example, Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003).
 What is ethnography?

1EEE the social world, both through its interpretations of it and through actions based on those
2 interpretations. Furthermore, those interpretations sometimes reflect different cultures, so there is a sense in the
3 that through their actions people create distinct social worlds (Blumer 1969: 11). But this
4 Constructionism and relativism are compatible with naturalism only as long as they are not applied to research.
5 ethnographic in itself. Once we come to see ethnographers as themselves constructing the social world
6 through their interpretations of it, thus producing immeasurable narratives that reflect the differences in their
7 background cultures, a conflict arises with the naturalistic realism incorporated in the most ethnographic approaches
8 ancient.
9
10 This internal source of doubts about realism was reinforced by the impact of several external developments. One was the changes.

1 in the field of the philosophy of science. While positivism had dominated this field until the early 1950s, in

2 At that moment, its dominance began to weaken, ultimately producing a series of alternative positions, some of which

EEE3 they rejected realism. A sign of this change was the enormous influence of Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

4 scientific (Kuhn 1996; first published in 1962). Kuhn argued against the viewpoints of the history of science

5
6
7 scientific thought in the past was shaped by theoretical assumptions about the world that were not themselves based on the

8 empirical research, many of which are judged by today's scientists as false. Kuhn also stated that history

9 of science, instead of showing the gradual accumulation of knowledge, is marked by periods of revolution in which the

20 theoretical presuppositions that form the 'paradigm' in terms of which scientists in a particular field have operated

1 they are previously challenged and replaced. One example is the shift from Newtonian physics to the theory of relativity and mechanics
quantum at the beginning of the 20th century. The replacement of one paradigm by another, according to Kuhn, does not happen, because it cannot, simply over the
2
3 basis for the rational evaluation of evidence. Paradigms are incommensurable, they imagine the world in incompatible ways, of

4 so the data itself is interpreted differently by those who work with different paradigms. This implies that the

5EEE Judgments about the validity of scientific claims are always relative to the paradigm within which they operate; they are never simply

6 a reflection of some independent domain of reality. because it cannot happen simply based on rational evaluation of

7 the evidence. Paradigms are incommensurable, they imagine the world in incompatible ways, so that the data itself is

8 interpreted differently by those who work with different paradigms. This implies that judgments about the validity of the

9 Scientific assertions are always relative to the paradigm within which they operate; they are never simply a reflection of some domain.

independent of reality. because it cannot occur simply based on the rational evaluation of evidence. The
30
paradigms are incommensurable, they imagine the world in incompatible ways, so that the data itself is interpreted in a manner
1
different for those who work with different paradigms. This implies that judgments about the validity of scientific claims
2
they are always relative to the paradigm within which they operate; they are never simply a reflection of some domain independent of reality. This implies that the
3
4 Kuhn's work incorporated most of the arguments against positivism that had become influential:
5 that there is no neutral observational foundation of theory against which theories can be tested, and that the
6 Judgments about the validity of theories are never completely determined by any evidence. Also
7 he proposed an alternative conception of science that contrasted markedly with the positivist model. Without
8 embargo, his criticism counted both against naturalism, against the idea that the researcher would come into contact
9 directly with reality, as opposed to positivism. According to him, all knowledge of the world is mediated by
40 paradigmatic budgets. Additionally, the alternative vision offered made natural scientists seem
1 much to the people that ethnographers had long described in their accounts as builders of
2 diverse social worlds. And science sociologists have subsequently produced ethnographies of work
3 natural scientists and technological innovators in this regard (see Hess 2001). In this way, natural
4
5
6
7 13 There is some ambiguity in Kuhn's work, and this has led to disputes over its interpretation. For
41EEE For a detailed discussion, see Sharrock and Read (2002).
What is ethnography?

science transitioned from being primarily a methodological model for social research to becoming an object of
sociological research; and in many ways this brought to a critical point the conflict between naturalism and the
constructionism
As important as developments within the philosophy of science for generating doubts about the
realism was influenced by several philosophical trends from continental Europe. naturalism had been influenced
for the ideas of the 19th century about hermeneutics, about the interpretation of historical texts, particularly the work
from Dilthey (see Makkreel)
1975). This was the source of the idea, mentioned earlier, that sociocultural understanding takes a
a different way than the way natural scientists understand physical phenomena. In the 20th century, without
embargo, this previous hermeneutical tradition was challenged by a new form of "hermeneutics"
philosophical", developed by Gadamer (see Howard 1982; Warnke 1987; Dostal 2002). Where, previously, the
Understanding human texts had been presented as a rigorous task of retrieving meaning.
intended by the author and place it within the relevant cultural environments, philosophical hermeneutics saw the
the process of understanding as an inevitable reflection of the interpreter's 'prejudices', the preconceived notions.
Interpretation of texts and, by extension, understanding of the social world as well, could no longer be seen as a
a matter of capturing social meanings in their own terms; the produced narratives were considered
constructions that inevitably reflected the sociohistorical position and the assumptions of backgrounds of
researcher.

Another powerful influence on ethnography has been post-structuralism and postmodernism. These labels
they refer to a diverse set of ideas and works, but we will only mention two of the most influential figures:
the "deconstruction" of Derrida and the work of Foucault. Like philosophical hermeneutics, deconstruction also

individuals. Rather, they reflect the changing constitutive role of language. The
weakening of the deconstruction of the distinctions between different genres of writing: their defenders have
treaty to erase the differentiation between fiction and non-fiction, in fact, between literary and technical writing in general.
This has led to the recognition of the fact that the language used by ethnographers in their writings is not
a transparent medium that allows us to see reality through it, but rather a construction that is based on
many of the rhetorical strategies used by journalists, travel writers, novelists, and others. Some
commentators have come to the conclusion that the phenomena described in ethnographic accounts are created in
and through the rhetorical strategies employed, instead of being external to the text; In summary, this
Concern about rhetoric has often been associated with forms of antirealism.

Foucault's work is also based on a rejection of realism: he is not concerned with truth or falsehood.
of the ideas it studies, for example about madness or sex.
- but rather with the 'regimes of truth' through which they are constituted and how they have structured practices
institutional during the development of Western society.sixteen

14 For an excellent description of the emergence of these ideas in the context of French philosophy, see Gutting.
(2001).
15 See, for example, Tyler (1986), Ashmore (1989); Piper and Stronach (2004).
The assertion that Foucault rejects realism, although not fundamentally misleading, obscures both
the ambiguities, probably ingenious, in his work on this matter, and their emergence from the tradition of rationalist epistemology:
See Gutting (1989). For a more general discussion on Foucault, see Gutting (1994).
 What is ethnography?

1EEE It highlights the fact that psychological and social sciences are of a socio-historical nature and states that
2 they function as part of the process of surveillance and control, which he sees as the central characteristic of society
3 modern. Their products reflect this social character, instead of representing a world that is independent of.
4 They. Foucault argues that different regimes of truth are established in different contexts, which
5 reflects the play of various sources of power and resistance. Thus, what is treated as true and false, both in
6 Social sciences, like in other places, are constituted through the exercise of power.
7
8
9 The reception of post-structuralist and postmodernist ideas in the context of qualitative research
10 Anglo-American has involved diverse readings and responses to what was, of course, in no way a
1 coherent set of texts; these extend far beyond those of Derrida and Foucault. Generally, these
2 readings and responses have reinforced trends toward some form of antirealism, encouraged the adoption of
EEE3 non-Marxist leftist political orientations that involved the idea that some discourses / voices are
4 repressed and that the function of research should be to free them. Much less frequently, this influence
5 it has also led to the subversion of conventional ethnographic textual strategies.
6
7
8 While most ethnographers have not completely abandoned realism, the idea that the narratives
9 ethnographic methods can represent social reality in a relatively straightforward way (for example, through the
20 The ethnographer approaching her has been widely rejected; and the claims of authority have been brought into question.
1 scientific associations with realism. Furthermore, especially in Foucault's work, we have a direct link to the
2 second criticism of naturalism: its abandonment of the politics of social research.
3
4
5EEE
The politics of ethnography
6
7 Naturalists shared with positivists the commitment to produce explanations of factual issues that reflect the
8 the nature of the phenomena studied instead of the values or political commitments of the researcher. Of course, both
9 they recognized that, in practice, research is affected by the values of the researcher, but the goal was to limit the
30 influence of those values as much as possible, in order to produce findings that were true regardless of
1 any position of particular value. Since the mid-1980s, any effort to achieve neutrality of
2 values and objectivity has been challenged, sometimes replaced by the defense of 'openly ideological' research
3 (Lather 1986), the 'militant anthropology' (Scheper-Hughes
4
5 1995), or research that is explicitly conducted from the perspective of a particular group, by
6 example, women, people who suffer from racism, indigenous peoples or people with disabilities (see Denzin and Lincoln
7 2005).
8 Partly, this is due to the ongoing influence of Marxism and 'critical' theory, but also
9 The impact of feminism and post-structuralism has been important. From a Marxist point of view.
40 Traditionally, the very distinction between facts and values is a historical product that can be overcome through
1 the future development of society. Values refer to the human potential that is built in
2 development of the story. In this sense, values are facts, although they may not yet have been realized in the
3 social world. In addition, they provide the key to understanding the nature of social conditions
4 current, their past and their future. From this point of view, a science
5
6
7 For discussions on the implications of Foucault's work for ethnography, see Gubrium and Silverman.
41EEE (1989); Kendall and Wickham (2004).
What is ethnography?

society must provide not only abstract knowledge but also the basis for action to transform the
world in order to achieve human self-realization. According to this argument, ethnography, like other forms of
social research cannot stop simultaneously addressing factual issues and values, and its role involves
inevitably the political intervention (whether the researchers know it or not).

A similar conclusion has been reached about the political nature of social research in other ways, by
example, for those who argue that because research is always affected by values and always
it has political consequences, researchers must take responsibility for their commitments to values and to the
effects. of their work. It has been suggested that ethnography and other forms of social research have had very little
impact, that their products are simply sitting on the shelves of libraries gathering dust and that, as
results are worthless. It is suggested that, in order to be valuable, ethnographic research should not be concerned

Cribb 2006).

There are differences of opinion about the nature of the change that should be aimed for. Sometimes, the concern is
make research more relevant for national policy formulation or for one form or another of
professional practice (see, for example, Hustler
et al. 1986; Hart and Bond 1995; Healy 2001; Taylor et al. 2006). Alternatively, or as part of this, one can
argue that research should be emancipatory. This has been proposed by feminists, where the
the objective is the emancipation of women (and men) from the patriarchy (Fonow and Cook 1991; Lather 1991; Olesen
2005); but it is also found in the writings of critical ethnographers and proponents of action research.
emancipatory, where it is considered that the objective of the research is the transformation of societies
Westerners in order to realize the ideals of freedom, equality, and justice (Gitlin et al. 1989; Kemmis and McTaggart
2005). Similar developments have occurred in the field of disability studies (Barnes 2003) and in
the context of queer theory (Plummer 2005).

Of course, to the extent that the very possibility of producing knowledge is undermined by the type of
anti-realist arguments we outlined earlier, a concern for the practical or political effects of the
Research can come to seem like an essential alternative goal to the traditional concern for truth. This
it has also led to the growth of more interventionist conceptions of ethnography. In this way, the
poststructuralism and postmodernism have contributed to the politicization of social research, although in a
way nothing unequivocal because they seem to simultaneously undermine all political ideals (Dews 1987). By
for example, they threaten any appeal to the interests or rights of Humanity; and in the context of the
feminist research challenges the concept of woman.

Reflexivity

Sometimes it is considered that the criticisms of naturalism that we have outlined arise from what has been called the
the reflexive character of social research. It is argued that both positivism and naturalism do not take into account
One important point is that social researchers are part of the social world they study. A clear distinction
between science and common science

18 'Reflexivity' is a term that has come to be used in different ways, and the meaning that
what is being given here is by no means indisputable, see Lynch (2000). For discussions on some of the issues of the
reflexivity, see Troyna (1994); Paechter (1996); Adkins (2002); Finlay (2002); Haney (2002).
 What is ethnography?

1EEE The meaning, between the activities and knowledge of the researcher and those of the researched, lies in the
2 heart of both positions. This is what leads to their joint concern about eliminating the effects of
3 researcher on the data. For positivism, the solution is the standardization of procedures
4
5 extreme, the demand that ethnographers 'commit' themselves to the cultures they wish to study (Wolff
6 1964; Jules-Rosette 1978a, 1978b). Both positions assume that it is possible, at least in principle,
7 isolating a set of data not contaminated by the researcher, turning it, in one case, into a
8 automaton or, in the other, in a neutral vessel of cultural culture. experience. However, the search
9 an empirical base of this type is useless;
10
1
2
EEE3
4 Represents a rejection of the idea that social research is carried out, or can be carried out, in any area.
5 autonomous individual who is isolated from society in general and from the researcher’s biography, in such a way that his
6 findings cannot be affected by social processes and personal characteristics. Furthermore, it is emphasized that the
7 The production of knowledge by researchers has consequences. At a minimum, the publication of the
8 research results can shape the climate in which political and practical decisions are made, and even
9 it can directly stimulate certain types of action. In fact, it can change the character of situations
20 that were studied. Moreover, the repercussions of the research are not neutral in relation to the values that are
1 are considered important, nor are they necessarily desirable. In fact, some commentators believe that the
2 social research plays an undesirable role in supporting one or another aspect of the political status quo in the
3 Western societies. As we saw, for Foucault, social sciences were part of a modern apparatus of
4 surveillance.
5EEE
6
7 There is no doubt that reflexivity, in the sense we have just outlined, is a significant trait.
8 from social research. In fact, there is a sense in which all social research takes the form of
9 participant observation: it involves participating in the social world, in any role, and reflecting on the
30 products of that participation. However, it is not necessary to draw conclusions from the reflexivity of the
1 social research like that done by critics of naturalism. In our opinion, the
2 recognition of reflexivity implies that there are elements of positivism and naturalism that must
3 to abandon oneself; but it does not require the rejection of all the ideas associated with those two lines of
4 thought. Therefore, we do not consider that reflexivity undermines the commitment of researchers.
5 with realism.19 Similarly, we do not believe that reflexivity implies that research is
6 necessarily political, or that must be political, in the sense of serving particular political causes or
7 practical fines. For us, the exclusive and immediate objective of all research is, and must remain
8
9
40
1
2
Reflexivity and realism
3
4 It is true that we cannot help but rely on common sense knowledge, nor can we often avoid having a
5 effect on the social phenomena we study. In other words, there is
6
7 19 For an influential epistemological analysis that acknowledges the fallible nature of any evidence except
41EEE maintains a commitment to realism, see Haack (1993). Also see Hammersley (2004).
sixteen What is ethnography?

There is no way to escape the social world to study it. However, fortunately, this is not necessary since
a realistic point of view. There is so little justification for rejecting all common sense knowledge as for
treat it as 'valid on its own terms': we do not have an absolutely conclusive external standard by which
to judge it. But we can work with what we currently consider knowledge, recognizing at the same time
what could be erroneous; and to participate in a systematic inquiry where doubt seems justified. And in doing this,
we can still make the reasonable assumption that we are capable of describing phenomena as they are, and not
simply how we perceive them or how we would like them to be (Hammersley 1992: chap. 3). All of us, in
in our daily activities, we rely on assumptions about the world, few of which we have subjected to
we test ourselves, and none of which we could test completely and independently. Most of
At times this does not concern us nor should it concern us, and social research is no different from other activities.
In this regard. We need to reflect only on what seems —or can be demonstrated— problematic, leaving
the possibility that what is currently not problematic may become so in the future.

it is true that some aspects of this process have not received the attention they deserve until recently. However,
to say that our findings, and even our data, are constructed does not automatically imply that they do not represent or
they cannot represent social phenomena. To believe that this is implicit is to assume that the only true way of
representation would imply that the world imprints its characteristics on our senses without any activity of
our part, a very implausible explanation even of the process of perception (Gregory 1970).

Similarly, the fact that as researchers we likely have an effect on the people who ...
studying does not mean that the validity of our findings is restricted to the data collection situations in which
we rely on it. We can minimize reactivity and/or monitor it. But we can also exploit it: how people
responding to the presence of the researcher can be as informative as how they react to other situations. In fact,
Instead of engaging in futile attempts to completely eliminate the effects of the researcher, we should begin to
understand them, a point that Schuman (1982) pointed out in relation to social surveys:

The basic position I will take is simple: the artifacts are in the mind of the viewer. Except for one or two.
exceptions, the problems that arise in surveys are opportunities for understanding once that
we take them seriously as facts of life. Let's distinguish here between the simple survey and the survey
scientific. . . . The simple approach of survey research takes responses literally, ignoring
interviewers as sources of influence and treats sampling as unproblematic. It is very likely
that a person who proceeds in this way stumbles and falls on their device. The scientific survey,
On the other hand, it treats the survey research as a quest for meaning, and the ambiguities.
of language and interviews, the discrepancies between attitude and behavior, even the
problems of lack of response provide an important part of the data.

(Schuman 1982: 23)

 What is ethnography?17

1EEE In summary, 'what is an artifact, if treated with naivety, reflects a fact of life if taken seriously.'
2 (Schuman 1982: 24). To understand the effects of research and research procedures,
3 we need to compare data in which the level and direction of reactivity vary. Once we leave the
4 the idea that the social character of research can be standardized or avoided by becoming a 'fly on the wall'
5 "partner" or in a "full participant", the role of the researcher as an active participant in the research process.
6 It is clear. As has been recognized for a long time by ethnographers, he or she is the instrument of
7 research by excellence. The fact that behavior and attitudes are often not stable across all
8 the contexts and the ability for the researcher to influence the context becomes fundamental for the analysis. In fact, it
9 can make the most of it. The data should not be taken literally, but treated as a field of
10 inferences where hypothetical patterns can be identified and tested for validity. Different can be explored
1 research strategies and compare their effects in order to draw theoretical conclusions. The interpretations
2 They must be made explicit and every opportunity should be taken to test their limits and evaluate.
EEE3 alternatives. This viewpoint sharply contrasts with the image of social research projected by the
4
naturalism, although it is closer to some other models of ethnographic research such as 'theorization
5
founded', 'analytical induction' and the strategy model that is found alongside naturalism in the work.
6
Schatzman and Strauss (1973). And in this way, the image of the researcher is placed in parallel with that of the people.
7
studied, as actively making sense of the world,
8
9
20
1
2
3
4 Reflexivity and political character of research
5EEE
Positivism and naturalism, in the forms we have discussed, tend to present research as a
6
activity that is carried out by itself and on its own terms. On the contrary, as we have seen, some critics
7
They insist that research has a social function, serving for example to legitimize and preserve the status quo. And
8
on this basis they argue that researchers should try to make their research have a different function,
9
challenging the status quo, in a certain sense. Often, this viewpoint is organized around the question: what about
30
Which side is the researcher on? (Becker 1967b; Troyna and Carrington 1989; but see Hammersley 2000: chapter 3).
1
2
3
As we saw earlier, others argue that what is wrong with ethnography is its lack of impact on the
4
5 formulation of policies and practice, their limited profitability in the everyday world of politics and work. Here it

6 discarded as an idle pastime, a case of searching while the world burns; one in which intellectuals participate

7 dilettantes who live off the taxes paid by working citizens.

8
9 These criticisms of naturalistic ethnography seem to us to imply an overestimation of the real contribution.
40 and the potential of research to policy and practice, and a related failure to value contributions more
1 modest that offers (Rule 1978; Hammersley 2002). It is also worth noting that one might believe that
2 the only justification for research is its contribution to policy and practice, and to acknowledge that
3 it inevitably has effects on them, without concluding that it must be directed towards the achievement of objectives
4 politicians or private practitioners. In fact, there are good reasons for research not to be oriented
5 towards such objectives. The most important thing is that this would increase the chances that the findings are
6 distorted by ideas about how the world should be, or by what would be politically convenient for others to believe.
7 When we are
41EEE
What is ethnography?

Committed to political actions or practices, the truth of what we say is not always our main concern.
concern, although we prefer to be honest. We are more interested in the practical effects of our
actions and, at times, this can lead us to be "economical" with the truth, at a minimum; perhaps even in relation
with ourselves (Benson and Stangroom 2006: chap. 1). Furthermore, even when the truth of our beliefs
It is the main theme, in practical activities, the judgment of factual and value statements as more or less.
Reliable will be based on somewhat different considerations than research aimed at producing knowledge:
we will probably worry mainly about whether the information is reliable enough to
our current purposes. Of course, if one believes, as Marx and others did and do, that (at least in the end
in this instance) the true and the good are identical, one could deny the importance of this difference in orientation between
the research and other practical activities. But this point of view is based on a philosophical infrastructure
elaborate and unconvincing (Hammersley 1992: ch. 6, 1993).

It is worth emphasizing that denying that research should be directed towards political objectives is not
to suggest that researchers can, or should, abandon their political convictions. It is to insist that,
as researchers, their main objective should always be to produce knowledge and that they should try to
minimize any distortion of their findings by their political beliefs or practical interests.
We also do not suggest that researchers should not be concerned about the effects of their work on the world.
The point is that recognizing the reflexivity of research does not imply that it should be primarily directed.
to change (or in this case preserve) the world in one way or another. And, as we have indicated, there are good
reasons why it shouldn't be like this.

Conclusion

We begin this chapter by examining two contrasting explanations of the logic of social research and its
implications for ethnography. Neither positivism nor naturalism provide an adequate framework. Both neglect
its fundamental reflexivity: the fact that we are part of the social world we study, and that there is no way to
escape from the reliance on common sense knowledge and research methods. All social research

capable of reflecting on ourselves and our actions as objects in that world. However, instead
to generate doubts about whether social research can produce knowledge or the desire to transform it into a
political company, for us, this reflexivity provides the basis for a reconstructed research logic that
it shares much with positivism and naturalism, but goes beyond them in important aspects. By including our

the environments under study as researchers, we can produce narratives of the social world and justify them without depending on
useless appeals to empiricism, whether positivist or naturalist. varieties.

Reconstructing our understanding of social research according to the implications of its reflexivity
it also sheds light on the relationship between quantitative and qualitative approaches. Certainly, there is little justification
for the opinion, associated with naturalism, that ethnography represents a superior alternative paradigm to the
quantitative research. On the other hand, it has a much more powerful contribution to make to the sciences
social aspects of what positivism allows. And, while it combines different methods for particular purposes,
 What is ethnography?

1EEE Many times it can be valuable, this should not be done at the expense of forgetting important ideas.
2 methodological approaches associated with ethnography and with qualitative research in general.
3
4 Reflexivity is an aspect of all social research. It is one that has received increasing attention from
5 part of ethnographers and others in recent years, especially in the production of 'natural histories' of
6 private studies. The rest of this book is dedicated to explaining what we consider the implications of the
7 reflexivity for ethnographic practice.
8
9
10
1
2
EEE3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
5EEE
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
41EEE 20 To obtain a list of examples of natural history from social research, see Hammersley (2003b).