The Epistemology of Qualitative Researchi Howard S.

Becker
QualitativeandQuantitative

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

SomeThoughtsAboutEpistemology

Let'sfirststepback,andaskaboutepistemologyasadiscipline.Howdoesitseeitsjob?What kindsofquestionsdoesitraise?Likemanyotherphilosophicaldisciplines,epistemologyhas characteristicallyconcerneditselfwithoughtsratherthaniss,andsettleditsquestionsby reasoningfromfirstprinciplesratherthanbyempiricalinvestigation.Empiricaldisciplines,in contrast,haveconcernedthemselveswithhowthingsworkratherthanwhattheyoughttobe, andsettledtheirquestionsempirically. Sometopicsofphilosophicaldiscussionhaveturnedintoareasofempiricalinquiry.Scholars oncestudiedbiologyandphysicsbyreadingAristotle.Politics,anotherareaphilosophersonce controlled,waslikewiseaninquiryinwhichscholarssettledquestionsbyreasoningratherthanby investigation.Wecanseesomeareasofphilosophy,amongthemepistemology,goingthroughthis transformationnow,givinguppreachingabouthowthingsshouldbedoneandsettlingforseeing howtheyareinfactdone. Aesthetics,forinstance,hastraditionallybeenthestudyofhowtotellartfromnonartand, especially,howtotellgreatartfromordinaryart.Itsthrustisnegative,concernedprimarilywith 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 peoplewhoclaimtobedoingsciencedo,howthetermisfoughtover,andwhatpeoplewhowin therighttouseitcangetawaywith.(Latour1987) So:thispaperwillnotbeanothersermononhowweoughttodoscience,andwhatwe shouldntbedoing,andwhatevilswillbefallusifwedotheforbiddenthings.Rather,itwilltalk abouthowethnographershaveproducedcredible,believableresults,especiallythoseresults whichhavecontinuedtocommandrespectandbelief. Suchanenterpriseis,tobephilosophical,quiteAristotelian,inlinewiththeprogramofthe Poetics,whichundertooknottolegislatehowatragedyoughttobeconstructedbutrathertosee whatwastrueoftragedieswhichsuccessfullyevokedpityandterror,producingcatharsis. EpistemologistshaveoftenpretendedtosuchAristoteliananalysis,butmoretypicallydeliver sermons.

WhyDoWeThinkTheresaDifference?

Twocircumstancesseemlikelytoproducetheallegeddifferencesbetweenqualitativeand quantitativeepistemologistsofsocialsciencemakesomuchof.Oneisthatthetwosortsof methodstypicallyraisesomewhatdifferentquestionsatthelevelofdata,onthewayto generalizationsaboutsociallife.Surveyresearchersuseavariantoftheexperimentalparadigm,

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?Tothepolice?Tothejuvenilecourt?Fieldworkersarelikewiseinterestedinthehistories ofevents:howdidthisstart?Thenwhathappened?Andthen?Andhowdidallthateventuallyend upinadelinquentactoradelinquentcareer?Andhowdidthissequenceofeventsdependonthe organizationofallthisotheractivity? Theargumentrestsontheinterdependenceofalotofmoreorlessprovedstatements.The pointisnottoprove,beyonddoubt,theexistenceofparticularrelationshipssomuchasto describeasystemofrelationships,toshowhowthingshangtogetherinawebofmutualinfluence orsupportorinterdependenceorwhathaveyou,todescribetheconnectionsbetweenthe specificstheethnographerknowsbyvirtueofhavingbeenthere.(Seethediscussionin(Diesing 1971.)Beingthereproducesastrongbeliefthatthevariedeventsyouhaveseenareallconnected, whichisnotunreasonablesincewhatthefieldworkerseesisnotvariablesorfactorsthatneedto berelatedbutpeopledoingthingstogetherinwaysthataremanifestlyconnected.Afterall,its thesamepeopleanditsonlyouranalysisthatproducestheabstractanddiscretevariableswhich thenhavetobeputbacktogether.Sofieldworkmakesyouawareoftheconstructedcharacterof variables.(Whichisnottosaythatweshouldnevertalkvariabletalk.) Aseconddifferencewhichmightaccountforthepersistentfeelingthatthetwomethods differepistemologicallyisthatthesituationsofdatagatheringpresentfieldworkers,whetherthey seekitornot,withalotofinformation,whethertheywantitornot.Ifyoudoasurvey,youknow inadvancealltheinformationyoucanacquire.Theremaybesomesurprisesintheconnections betweentheitemsyoumeasure,buttherewillnotbeanysurprisedata,thingsyoudidntask aboutbutweretoldanyway.Apartialexceptiontothismightbetheuseofopenendedquestions, butevensuchquestionsareusuallynotaskedinsuchawayastoencouragefloodsof unanticipateddatasuggestingnewvariables.Infact,theactualworkingsofsurveyorganizations discourageinterviewersfromrecordingdatanotaskedforontheforms.(Cf.Peneff1988) Incontrast,fieldworkerscannotinsulatethemselvesfromdata.Aslongastheyareinthe fieldtheywillseeandhearthingswhichoughttobeenteredintotheirfieldnotes.Iftheyare conscientious,orexperiencedenoughtoknowthattheyhadbetter,theyputitallin,evenwhat theythinkmaybeuseless,andkeepondoingthatuntiltheyknowforsurethattheywillneveruse

dataoncertainsubjects.Theythusallowthemselvestobecomeawareofthingstheyhadnot anticipatedwhichmayhaveabearingontheirsubject.Theyexpecttocontinuallyaddvariables andideastotheirmodels.Insomeways,thatistheessenceofthemethod.

ManyEthnographies

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 onthewayresearchersworkthesepositionsoutinpractice.Whatresearchersdousuallyreflects someaccommodationtotherealitiesofsociallife,whichaffectthemasmuchasanyotheractor socialscientistsstudy,byconstrainingwhattheycando.Theiractivitythuscannotbeaccounted fororexplainedfullybyreferringtophilosophicalpositions.(Cf.Platt,unpublishedpaper)Inshort, Imdescribingpracticalepistemology,howwhatwedoaffectsthecredibilityofthepropositions weadvance.Ingeneral,Ithink(notsurprisinganyonebysodoing)thattheargumentsadvancedby qualitativeresearchershaveagooddealofvalidity,butnotinthedogmaticandgeneralwaythey areoftenproposed.SoImaypausehereandthereforafewsnottyremarksontheexcesses ethnographerssometimesfallinto. Afewbasicquestionsseemtolieattheheartofthedebatesaboutthesemethods:Mustwe takeaccountoftheviewpointofthesocialactorand,ifwemust,howdowedoit?And:howdowe dealwiththeembeddednessofallsocialactionintheworldofeverydaylife?And:howthickcan weandshouldwemakeourdescriptions?

TheActor'sPointofView:Accuracy

Onemajorpointmostethnographerstoutasamajorepistemologicaladvantageofwhatthey doisthatitletsthemgraspthepointofviewoftheactor.Thissatisfieswhattheyregardasa crucialcriterionofadequatesocialscience.Takingthepointofviewoftheotherisawonderful exampleofthevarietyofmeaningsmethodologicalslogansacquire.Forsome,ithasakindof religiousorethicalsignificance:ifwefailtodothatweshowdisrespectforthepeoplewestudy. Anothertendencygoesfurther,findingfaultwithsocialsciencewhichspeaksforothers,by givingsummariesandinterpretationsoftheirpointofview.Inthisview,itisnotenoughtohonor, respect,andallowfortheactors'pointofview.Onemustalsoallowthemtoexpressitthemselves. Forothers,meamongthem,thisisatechnicalpointbestanalyzedbyHerbertBlumer(1969): allsocialscientists,implicitlyorexplicitly,attributeapointofviewandinterpretationstothe peoplewhoseactionsweanalyze.Thatis,wealwaysdescribehowtheyinterprettheeventsthey participatein,sotheonlyquestionisnotwhetherweshould,buthowaccuratelywedoit.Wecan findout,notwithperfectaccuracy,butbetterthanzero,whatpeoplethinktheyaredoing,what

meaningstheygivetotheobjectsandeventsandpeopleintheirlivesandexperience.Wedothat bytalkingtothem,informalorinformalinterviews,inquickexchangeswhileweparticipateinand observetheirordinaryactivities,andbywatchingandlisteningastheygoabouttheirbusiness;we canevendoitbygivingthemquestionnaireswhichletthemsaywhattheirmeaningsareorchoose betweenmeaningswegivethemaspossibilities.Toanticipatealaterpoint,thenearerwegetto theconditionsinwhichtheyactuallydoattributemeaningstoobjectsandeventsthemore accurateourdescriptionsofthosemeaningsarelikelytobe. Blumerarguedthatifwedon'tfindoutfrompeoplewhatmeaningstheyareactuallygivingto things,wewillstilltalkaboutthosemeanings.Inthatcase,wewill,ofnecessity,inventthem, reasoningthatthepeoplewearewritingaboutmusthavemeantthisorthat,ortheywouldnot havedonethethingstheydid.Butitisinevitablyepistemologicallydangeroustoguessatwhat couldbeobserveddirectly.Thedangeristhatwewillguesswrong,thatwhatlooksreasonableto uswillnotbewhatlookedreasonabletothem.Thishappensallthetime,largelybecauseweare notthosepeopleanddonotliveintheircircumstances.Wearethuslikelytotaketheeasywayand attributetothemwhatwethinkwewouldfeelinwhatweunderstandtobetheircircumstances, aswhenstudentsofteenagebehaviorlookatcomparativeratesofpregnancy,andthecorrelates thereof,anddecidewhatthepeopleinvolvedmusthavebeenthinkinginordertobehavethat way. Thefieldofdruguse,whichoverlapsthestudyofadolescence,isrifewithsucherrorsof attribution.Themostcommonmeaningattributedtodruguseisthatitisanescapefromsome sortofrealitythedruguserissaidtofindoppressiveorunbearable.Drugintoxicationisconceived asanexperienceinwhichallpainfulandunwantedaspectsofrealityrecedeintothebackground sothattheyneednotbedealtwith.Thedruguserreplacesrealitywithgaudydreamsofsplendor andease,unproblematicpleasures,perverseeroticthrillsandfantasies.Reality,ofcourse,is understoodtobelurkinginthebackground,readytokicktheuserintheassthesecondheorshe comesdown. Thiskindofimageryhasalongliteraryhistory,probablystemmingfromDeQuinceys 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.

 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 languageofdailyworkaswell,notjusttheviewsofeminentscientistsandthosewhospeakfor thescience,butoftheordinaryscientistswhoactuallydothework.WhichiswhatLatour1987)and theotherstudentsofshopfloorpracticeinsciencehavedone(andwhatDiesing(1971),an unusualepistemologist,did),andmanyothersociologistsofsciencedidnot. Epistemologically,then,qualitativemethodsinsistthatweshouldnotinventtheviewpointof theactor,andshouldonlyattributetoactorsideasabouttheworldtheyactuallyhold,ifwewant tounderstandtheiractions,reasons,andmotives.

TheEverydayWorld:MakingRoomfortheUnanticipated

Asecondpoint,similartotheemphasisonlearningandunderstandingthemeaningspeople givetotheirworldandexperiencesinsteadofmakingthemup,isanemphasisontheeveryday world,everydaylife,thequotidien.Thiscatchphraseappearsfrequentlyinethnographicwriting, oftenreferringtotheideasofAlfredSchutz.InSchutz'swritings(e.g.,Schutz1962),andinthe elaborationsofthoseideascommonamongethnomethodologists,theeverydayworldtypically referstothetakenforgrantedunderstandingspeoplesharewhichmakeconcertedaction possible.Inthis,theidearesemblesthenotionofcultureonefindsinRedfield(1941)shared understandingsmademanifestinactandartifactandthesimilaremphasisonsharedmeanings inMeadian(GeorgeHerbertMead,thatis)thoughtasinterpretedbyBlumer. Thegeneralideaisthatweactintheworldonthebasisofassumptionsweneverinspectbut justacton,secureinthebeliefthatwhenwedootherswillreactasweexpectthemto.Aversion ofthisistheassumptionthatthingslooktomeastheywouldlooktoyouifyouwerestanding whereIamstanding.Inthisview,everydayunderstandingsrefersnotsomuchtothe understandingsinvolved,say,intheanalysisofakinshipsystemthatthisisthewayonemust behavetoonesmothersbrothersdaughter,forinstancebuttothedeepepistemologicalbeliefs thatundergirdallsuchsharedideas,themetaanalysesandontologieswearenotordinarilyaware ofthatmakesociallifepossible. Muchtheoreticalefforthasbeenexpendedonthisconcept.Ifavorasimpler,less controversial,moreworkadayinterpretation,eitherasanalternativeorsimplyasacomplementto thesedeeptheoreticalmeanings.Thisisthenotionoftheeverydayworldastheworldpeople actuallyactineveryday,theordinaryworldinwhichthethingsweareinterestedinunderstanding actuallygoon.Asopposedtowhat?Asopposedtothesimpler,lessexpensive,lesstime consumingworldthesocialscientistconstructsinordertogatherdataefficiently,inwhichsurvey questionnairesarefilledoutandofficialdocumentsconsultedasproxiesforobservationofthe activitiesandeventsthosedocumentsreferto. Mostethnographersthinktheyaregettingclosertotherealthingthanthat,byvirtueof observingbehaviorinsituoratleastlettingpeopletellaboutwhathappenedtothemintheirown words.Clearly,wheneverasocialscientistispresent,thesituationisnotjustwhatitwouldhave beenwithoutthesocialscientist.Isupposethisappliesevenwhennooneknowsthatthesocial scientistisasocialscientistdoingastudy.Anothermemberofacultwhobelievesflyingsaucers fromotherplanetsareabouttolandis,afterall,onemorememberthecultwouldnothavehad otherwiseand,ifthecultissmall,thatincreaseinnumbersmightaffectwhattheobserveristhere tostudy. But,giventhatthesituationisneverexactlywhatitwouldhavebeenotherwise,thereare degreesofinterferenceandinfluence.Ethnographerspridethemselvesonseeingandhearing, moreorless,whatpeoplewouldhavedoneandsaidhadtheobserversnotbeenthere. Onereasonforsupposingthistobetrueisthatethnographersobservepeoplewhenallthe constraintsoftheirordinarysocialsituationareoperative.Considerthiscomparatively.We typicallyassurepeopletowhomwegiveaquestionnaireorwhoweinterviewthatnoonewillever knowwhattheyhavesaidtous,orwhichalternativesonthequestionnairetheyhavechosen.(If wecantmakethatassurance,weusuallyworryaboutthevalidityoftheresults.)Thisinsulatesthe

peopleinterviewedfromtheconsequencestheywouldsufferifothersknewtheiropinions.The insulationhelpsusdiscoverpeoplesprivatethoughts,thethingstheykeepfromtheirfellows, whichisoftenwhatwewanttoknow. Butweshouldnotjumpfromtheexpressionofaprivatethoughttotheconclusionthatthat thoughtdeterminesthepersonsactionsinthesituationtowhichitmightberelevant.Whenwe watchsomeoneastheyworkintheirusualworksettingorgotoapoliticalmeetingintheir 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 potentiallyloweredopinionofhim.Heapologizedandmadeexcuseslater,buthedidit.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 whentheyhadachancetomakeachoice?Havingdonehisresearch,heinvitedhisfellowstudents toguesstheanswerand,buddingsocialscientiststhattheywere,theirguessescenteredonsocial class:thecarrierswouldprefermiddleclassareasbecausetheyweresafer;thecarrierswould preferworkingclassareasbecausetheinhabitantswouldbeonfewermailinglistsandthusthere wouldbelessmailtocarry;andsoon.Alltheseclever,reasonableguesseswerewrong.Whatthe carriershetalkedtopreferred(andthisisnottosaythatothercarrierselsewheremightnothave differentpreferencesandreasonsforthem)wereneighborhoodsthatwereflat.KansasCityishilly andthecarrierspreferrednottoclimbupanddownastheymovedfromstreettostreet.Thisis

notanexplanationthatwouldmakesensefromastratificationpointofview;afollowerof Bourdieu,forinstance,mightnotthinktoincludesuchaniteminasurvey.Butthatwasthereason thecarriersgave,ahomelyreasonwaitingtobediscoveredbysomeonewholeftroomforitto comeout.

FullDescription,ThickDescription:WatchingtheMargins

Ethnographerspridethemselvesonprovidingdense,detaileddescriptionsofsociallife,the kindGeertz(1974)hastaughtustorecognizeasthick.Theirprideoftenimpliesthatthefuller thedescription,thebetter,withnolimitsuggested.Atanextreme,ethnographerstalkingof reproducingthelivedexperienceofothers. Thereissomethingwrongwiththisonthefaceofit.Theobjectofanydescriptionisnotto reproducetheobjectcompletelywhybotherwhenwehavetheobjectalready?butratherto pickoutitsrelevantaspects,detailswhichcanbeabstractedfromthetotalityofdetailsthatmake itupsothatwecananswersomequestionswehave.Socialscientists,forinstance,usually concentrateonwhatcanbedescribedinwordsandnumbers,andthusleaveoutallthoseaspects ofrealitythatuseothersenses,whatcanbeseenandheardandsmelled.(Howmanymonographs 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. Isoneofthesebetterthananother?Havingthechildrenwriteitdowninaformisbetter becauseitischeapandefficient.Copyingitfromarecordtheparentsmademightbebetter becausetheparentshavebetterknowledgeofwhattheydoandbetterlanguagewithwhichto expressitthanthechildrendo.Seeingforourselveswouldstillbeopentoquestionmaybethey arejustworkingtherethisweekbutitleaveslessroomforslippage.Wedonthavetoworry aboutthechildsignoranceortheparentsdesiretoinflatetheirstatus.Epistemologically,Ithink, theobservationwhichrequireslessinferenceandfewerassumptionsismorelikelytobeaccurate, althoughtheaccuracysoproducedmightnotbeworthbotheringwith.

 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,notforresearchershypothesistesting. Ethnographersthereforetypicallytreatdatagatheredbyofficialsandothersasdataabout whatthosepeopledid:policestatisticsasdataabouthowpolicekeeprecordsandwhattheydo withthem,dataaboutschooltestingasdataaboutwhatschoolsandtestersdoratherthanabout studenttraits,andsoon.Thatmeansthatethnographersaretypicallyveryirreverentandthis makestrouble. Itmakestroublewhereotherpeopledontsharetheirreverence,buttaketheinstitution seriouslyonitsownterms.Qualitativeresearchersareoften,thoughnotnecessarily,inakindof antagonisticrelationshiptosourcesofofficialdata,whodontliketobetreatedasobjectsofstudy butwanttobebelieved(IhavediscussedthiselsewhereBecker1967)undertheheadingofthe hierarchyofcredibility).

Coda

Theresnotmuchmoretosay.Practitionersofqualitativeandquantitativemayseemtohave differentphilosophiesofscience,buttheyreallyjustworkindifferentsituationsandaskdifferent questions.Thepoliticsofsocialsciencecanseduceusintomagnifyingthedifferences.Butit neednt,andshouldnt.

FurtherThoughts

Aftertheforegoinghadbeendiscussedattheconference,somepeoplefeltthattherewerestill unresolvedquestionsthatIoughttohavedealtwith.Thequestionswereonesthatareoftenraisedand myanswerstothemarenotreally"answers,"butratherresponseswhichdiscussthesocialsettingsin whichsuchquestionsareaskedrathermorethanthequestionersmayhaveanticipated. Onequestionhadtodowithhowonemightcombinewhataresometimescalledthe"two modalities,"thequalitativeandquantitativeapproachestosocialresearch.Thereisalittleliteratureon

thisquestion,whichgenerallyendsupsuggestingadivisionoflabor,inwhichqualitativeresearch generateshypothesesandquantitativeresearchteststhem.Thisquestionisinvariablyraised,andthis solutionproposed,byquantitativeresearchers,whoseemtofinditanimmenseproblem,andneverby qualitativeresearchers,whooftenjustgoaheadanddoit,notseeinganygreatproblem,inthat followingtheleadofRobertE.Park,asIsuggestedinthepaper. Well,whydon'tqualitativeresearchersthinkit'saproblem?Theydon'tthinkit'saproblembecause theyfocusonquestionstobeanswered,ratherthanprocedurestobefollowed.Thelogicofthisislaid outinenormousdetailinabookthatisnotaboutsociologyatall,GeorgePolya'sMathematicsand PlausibleReasoning,(1954)inwhichheshowshowonecombinesinformationofallkindsinassessing thereasonablenessofaconclusionoridea. Andhowdoresearchersactuallygoaboutcombiningthesedifferentkindsofdata?Thisisnotan easymattertosummarizebriefly,becausequalitativeresearchershavebeendoingthisforaverylong time,andtherearemanyexamplesofitbeingdoneinmanypartsoftheliterature.ThomasKuhn(1970) notedthatscientistslearntheirtradenotbyfollowingabstractproceduralrecipes,butratherby examiningexemplarsofworkintheirfieldcommonlyregardedaswelldone.Thebestwaytoseehow dataofthesevariouskindscanbecombinedistoexaminehowtheywerecombinedinexemplary 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 grossenoughtomakesuchtestsanunnecessaryfrill.JaneMercer'sLabelingtheMentallyRetarded (1973)isthenearestofthesethreetothestandardcombinationoftenrecommended;sheused communitysurveys,officialrecordsofseveralkinds,aswellasunstructuredinterviews,toarriveather conclusionsaboutthesocialcharacterofmentalretardation. Asecondquestiondealtwith"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

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 waysanswertheirquestions.Theywantthediscussiontogoonintheirlanguageandthestandardsof 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. Thathastosomeextenthappenedinthesocialsciences,asthegrowthofsocialscience(notethat 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 theirlanguageratherthanbeingtranslatedsothatthefullculturaldifferenceintheconceptsin questionareretained.Theyareveryoftenpowerfulenough,atleastforawhile,torequirethatthatbe done. ThisproblemoftranslationbetweenculturallydiffereinggroupsiswhatKuhncalledattentiontoin notingthatwhenthereisasubstantialparadigmdifference,asinthecaseofaparadigmshift,the languagesinwhichscientificworkisconductedcannotbetranlsatedintooneanother.Ifthegroupsare

infactindependent,thenthereisatranslationproblemandthesamedynamicthequestion,youmight say,ofwhosecategorieswillberespectedcomesintoplay. Sowhatseemlikequitereasonablerequestsforalittleclarificationaretheplayingoutofafamiliar ritual,whichoccurswheneverquantitativeworkersineducation,psychology,andsociologydecidethat theywillhavetopayattentiontoworkofotherkindsandthentrytocooptthatworkbymakingit answertotheircriteria,criterialikereliabilityandvalidity,ratherthantothecriteriaIproposed, commonlyusedbyqualitativeworkers.IwouldsaythatIwasn'tnotdealingwithvalidity,butwas, rather,dealingwithsomethingelsethatseemsasfundamentaltomeasvaliditydoestoothers. Thiswillallsoundatoddswithmyfundamentalbelief,expressedinthepaper,thatthetwostylesof workactuallysharethesame,oraverysimilar,epistemology.Idobelievethat'strue.ButIalsothink thatsomeworkersgetfixatedonspecificprocedures(notthesamethingasepistemology),actasIhave describedwithrespecttothoseprocedures,andhavethissamefeelingthatotherstylesofworkmust bejustifiedbyreferencetohowtheywelltheyaccomplishwhatthoseproceduresaresupposedto accomplish. Finally,somepeopleaskedhowonecouldtellgoodfrombadorbetterfromworseinqualitative 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 canonlybedonebyspeciallygiftedpeople,thatonlytheycangettheseremarkableresultsand,thus, thatthemethodstheyhaveusedarenotsuitableforthedevelopmentofascience.Thisrecognizes whatmustberecognizedqualitythateveryoneknowsistherewhilemarginalizingtheenterprisethat madethatqualitypossible.Goffmanwasindeedagiftedsocialscientist,buthisgiftsexpressed themselveswithinatraditionofthinkingandfieldworkthatextendedfromDurkheimthroughRadcliffe BrowntoLloydWarner,aswellasfromSimmeltoParktoHughesandBlumer.Thetraditionmadehis workpossible. Thatis,however,trueofgoodworkineverybranchofsocialscience,qualitativeorquantitative. StanleyLieberson,forinstance,isagiftedquantitativeresearcher,butwhatmakeshisworkoutstanding isnotthatheusessomeparticularmethodorthathefollowsapprovedprocedurescorrectly,butthat hehasimaginationandcansmellagoodproblemandfindagoodwaytostudyit.Whichistosaythat tellinggoodfrombadisnotassimpleasitappears.It'seasyenoughtotellworkthat'sdonebadly,and totellhowitwasdonebadly,andwhereitwentoffthetrack.Butthatinnowaymeansthatitis possible,inanyversionofsocialscience,towritedowntherecipefordoingworkofthehighestquality, workthatgoesbeyondmerecraft.That'sanotherstory.Physicists,whosomanysocialscientiststhink toimitate,knowthat.Howcomewedon't?

 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.ClairandHoraceCayton.BlackMetropolis.NewYork:Harcourt,BraceandCo.,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):520535. 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.

Whyte,WilliamFoote.StreetCornerSociety:TheSocialStructureofanItalianSlum.3rded.,Chicago: UniversityofChicagoPress,1981.