‘The Rashomon Effect: When Ethnographers Disagree Karl G. Heider American Anthropologist, New Scrics, Vol. 90, No. 1. (Mar., 1988), pp. 73-81. Stable URL: hiqpdlinks, stor orgie sici=0002-72049528 1988039202 3A90BIA 14307393 ATREWED%3E20,COBIB2-6 American Anthropologist is currently published by American Anthropological Association. ‘Your se of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at htipsfwww.jstor.orglabouttems.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part that ualess you have oblained prior peemission, you may not download aa catire issue ofa journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use cootent in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commectcial use. Please contact the publisher regavdling any fusther use ofthis wark. Publisher contact information may be obtained at -hup./forww.jster.org/jaurnals/anthro. ht, Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright aotice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission, an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding ISTOR, please contact support @jstor.org, bup:tvwo jstor orgy Sun Get 29.05:32:28 2006Kaat.G. HEIDER, Unisereity of South Caratina The Rashomon Effect: When Ethnographers Disagree Disagreaments betacen ethnographer: often arise because of the particular circumstances of fld- vwark or attributes of the ethnographers. A postiist search for th wergus error may be les _Sritfl than a consteuctionct examination ofthe research itself. This article suggests a conccpteal “Framezark for suck a emastrutionst approach ISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN ETHNOGRAPHERS ROSE 4 CRUCIAL METHODOLOGICAL puzate: How are we co understand oF resolve such disagreements? This article is an attempt to pull cogether 2 concepeual framework to deal with ehe puzzle. As it happens, cthnographers rarely disagree with each other's interpretations of a culture, and when, such disagreements do arise they are usually handled by discreet avoidance or confused, partisanship. Only recently, in confronting Derek Freeman's 1983 attack on Margaret Meads picture of Samoa, have many American anthropologists been pushed to think deeply about the meaning of ethnographic disagreement in general and, more important, todiscuss icin print ‘There are several well-known disagreements in anthropology. The classic disagree- ment was between Robert Redfield (1830) and Osear Lewis (1951, 1953, 1960) aver the nature of the Mexican village of Tepoztlan. Other natable disagreements in the ethno- {graphic litecature include whether oF nat the Arapesh had war (Mead 1935 versus For- tune 1939}, and the exchange between Ward H. Goodenough (1956) and John L. Fischer (1958) on residence rules in Truk. In reaction to Ruth, Benedict's famous capsule eth- nographies in Patiems of Cultura (1934) came Joha Bennett's discussion of alternative interpretations of Pueblo culture (1445), and Helen Godere's reanalysis of Kwakiuel (1956), There are also Beverly Gartrll’s article (1979) contrasting her view of che Nyika of Tanzania with that published by Miriam Slater {1976}, and Joseph Reser (1981) and Arthur Hippler (1981) on the Australian Aboriginals; and of caurse, most recently, Free- man on Mead’s Samoa (1983) ‘One's approach to these disagreements reflects one’s basic position on truth, reality, and the scientific method. In philosophical discourse, lines are clearly drawn beiween, rigorous logical positivism/empiricism and subjective metaphysical meaning-depea- dence (ct, Kaplan 1968 and Achinstein 1958:67). This dichotomy surfaces in anthropo- logical scholarship as a positivist-constructonist dispute (see Harris [1979:ch, 1] far pos- inivism, and Peacock [1996:68-72] for constructionism). 1 find both these presentations nicely equivocal and I, like many ethnographets, draw freely from both camps ia ey ove research Here, in dealing with ethnographers’ disagreements, I take an intermediate modified constructionist position: in important ways, cthnographics axe made, not found. Redfild, ‘one of the parties co the classie Tepoztlan disagreement, put it well: An account of a litte commusity is not something thae is given out of vending machine by puting in the appropriate cains of method and technique. There is no ane ultimate and uiterly ‘ane Hetoan a Prison, Departed of Antoiplgy, Onca of Suh Calin, Cla, $0 220 ”" Auenican Anrasarceocisr [90,198 ‘objective account ofa human whole. Bach account, ifit preserves the human quality a all isa treated product in which the human qualities ofthe creator—in the outside viewer and describ er-are one ingredient. (Redield 1960(1953):136] While Redfield’s position may have sounded hopelessly equivoeal in the 1950s, by the late 1980s itis hardly novel. Landmasks in this change might be che influential work by ‘Thomas Kuhn (1962) in che natural siences, who argues that research is shaped by the particular paradigm ofits time, and also che book by the psychalogist Rabert Rosenthal (1976) an the “Pygmalion Effect” and other factors creating observer bias. By now some form af the consteuctionist view is held by scholars in many disciplines (see Kemper 1981, Davis and Mitchell {985, and Shweder and Miller 1985) ‘The purpose ofthis article is o suggest that ethnographic disagreements present plz ales ofthe greatest importance. And there is aa irony here that Pollner (1974, 1975} has pointed out: itis only with the aasurnption of a shared veality (“roundane reasoning”) thae these disagreements (“reality disjunctures”) cake on significance as puzzles co be solved; there i a shared reality, true, but differing truths may indeed be said about it The charter image of this present enterprise is fram a 1950 Japanese film made by Alara Kurosawa based on «wo shor stories by Ryunosuke Akutagawa (Kurosawa 1969) The film is set in [2th-century Japan and concerns the encounter in the forest between 4 hhandi and a samurai and his wife The mystery ofthe film comes from four quite different saccounts of the same event (a sexual encauntee that may be rape, and a death that is either murder ar suicide). Bach account is clearly selEserving, intended to enhance the nobility ofthe teller, Each account is presented as a tuth ata tral by the bandit, the samurai’ wife, the samurai [who, having died, testifies through a spirit medium}, and a passing woodcutter wha may have been an onladker. As each of the four testifies, we see thac particular version of the events on film, so that the apparent truchfulaess of the visual image supports each testimony in turn. But unlike the familiar detective story on film, where accounts that are later impeached are given only verbally, Rashomon commits itsell to, and eoavinces us of, the eruth of each version in turn, And unlike the detective story, Wwe are not given an explanation wrapped up nicely in truth at the end T do not propase to take Rastomax 28 mare than an allusion co the idea of contradictory truths. Te is ae best a charter image for us, and certainly not a charter myth—deeper considecation of Kurosawa’s fl leads us t far afield, into consideration of ac verses flim-flar verses paradoxical koa At the most superficial level, a confrontation between twa ethnagraphers has all che attractions of a good fight, and nothing attracts attention quite like the sound of a col- league's mistakes being nailed to the watl. But the question of who is right and who is wrong in these confrontations is che least interesting one that we ean raise, Certainly theze are some senses in which an ethnagrapher may be jast plain wrong, buceven the mistaken ethnography has potential use, That is, even “mistakes!” may be made to seveal some- thing of imporcance about the culture concerned as well as about the backgraund of the ethnographer. ‘Another proposition: Thase cealms of culture that generate disagreement are likely to be those that are mast problematical and interesting. What these disagreements reveal about individual ethnographers is of ethnogeaphical importance to the extent that the disagreements arise as the result of the ethnographer's membership in a group (as rep resentative of his or her own euleuve, theoretical schol, ar the like). Buc most important, the value of thinking about the Rashomman Effect goes far beyond the relatively few cases of ethnographic disagreement chat we shall be able to cure up The sorts of ntluences, biases, or predilections we can examine here are at wosk in all. ethnography, even when its unchallenged. And so whac we leaen froma the special case of ethnographic disagreement can help us understand ethnography in genera. “The following is a brief discussion of some reasons for disagreements between ethnog- raphersHeider] ‘The Raswouow Esrecr % 1, Someone is wrong Probably most disagreements are not clearly resolvable (in the film Raskomaa, someone. did and athecs aid nat plunge the knife ita the samurai’s chest). The resalution may not beone of the twa answers offered hut same more complex mix {again, taking an example from Rashomon, there was probably sex hewween the handit and the samurai's wife, but it may have been somesehere between rape and seduction}. Atany rate, even ifwe ean satis- factorily determine that someone is wrong, we must go further to understand wh [do not at all intend chis co be a cavalier dismissal of truth or denial af the possibility ‘of falsehood. Ethnographies can concain information that is wrang, whether through de- liberate falsification or otherwise. Although Raoul Naroll and other holageistic anthro- pologists working with the Human Relations Area Files have aot been primarily con- cemed with ethnographic disagreement, they do deal with many of the same influences rnder discussion here, They generally focus on “the problem of ethnographic error” (Na roll [970:928), and do not treat itas a puzzle of interpretation. They have been crying to identify and so control for ethnographer bias which results in errors tp the ethaographics, because these errors compromise erass-cultural correlations. By their emphasis on error, they take a positivist position, Not surprisingly, the sorts of questions they ask of the eth nographies are especially vulnerable to false answers, in my view. For example, Narell’s most-cited finding concerns the presence or absence af witchcraft acribution (1'962:153): edhnogeaphers who spend longer in the field are more likely co report that deaths are attributed to witchcraft than those wha spend a shorter time. Que possible explanation ofthis is thae the short-term researchers are simply wrong, that they missed an important fact. And indeed, presence or absence of witchcraft beliefs is about as clase to a truly determinable fact as ane could ask for. 2. Thy are looking ot diffrent cultures ov subeultures This problem is exemplified hy the ald tale of the blind men disagreeing about the nature of an elephant because exch is touching a different part af the beast Confusion may atise from the use of one ame for peoples who are quite different in important ways. But generalizing to an emtire society on the basis of data from one subset, ‘of the population also happens often. J chink particularly of gender differences (see McGoodwin 1978}. but in many societies there is enaugh class at occupational differen- tiation «o create different views of the situation. This presumably would only result in disagreements ifthe source of che data was not specified and the generalizations were carelessly made, Thay are rjerving ta the same culture a diferent times Surely no anthropologist can be unaware of changes over time, but sometimes when ‘we create an ethnographic present we abscure the temporal origin of the data; Divale (1975) has emphasized the significance of this “temporal focus.” I would suggest that part of the disagreement between Mead and Fortune ahout Arapesh warfare can be at= tributed to dferences in time periods. Ember has addressed these two points, saying that “the main reason we should reject Freeman's attack on Mead is that his so-called evi- dence does not deal with the time and place that Mead described” (1985:906}. And we are not just talking about linear time change, as exemplified in the Pacific by the land- marks of pacification and missionization. We alsa need to consider the possibility that the different ethnographers stepped into the eulcure at a different phase of a cultural cycle. The philosopher John Ladd (1957) was forced by the exigencies of his academic duties ta da his Navajo fieldwork in che winter instead of the summer, when most ¢th- nographers had worked. As a result he learned of many matters of Navaia ethics that are ‘only spoken of in the wincer. I saw the great Pig Feast af the Grand Valley Dani for che first cime after nearly chree years of fieldwork, at che end of my fourth visit, after [ had begun to formulate my ideas of Dani as a low-intensity culture. An ethnographer who6 Auesican Avrmtorasocet [s0, 1988 began fieldwork with the Pig Feast might well come up with quite adifferent view of Dani culture, 4, They are looking differently atthe same culture 6. What of diffrent perconaliies ofthe ellmagraphers? There is aa old saying that each tribe gets the anthropologist it deserves. Surely this must have some cruth coi, but how do we deal with ic except anecdotally? For instance, Devereux says: Fortune apears ca have a special affinity forthe glum side of cultures, Hence, among che Dabuans hae studied mainly the (glum) mauifst, and amarg the Omaha the (giura) dawn side of culeure appear to have an affinigy for the warmly Fuman side of the culture. Hence, amang the Mohave was interested chiefly in the manifest pattern and among the Seda it the latent pattern... Some scholars implement their subjective need for consistency -. by emaphasizing, the manifest pattern at the expense of the latent one. (1967-914-215] +b. What of diffrent value systems of ethnographers? This was Redfield’s (1960[1953]} ex- planation of the Tepoztlan disagreement, and this is the factor of ideological bias that Precourt raised (1979). A romantic commitment co harmonious functionalism can lead to overemphasis on the harmonious aspects of a culture (Rohner, DeWalt, and Ness 1973; Garroll (974; Schweizer 1978) 6 Wheat of diffrent clteres ofthe etinographers? Suely, any ethaographer would agree at first with the proposition thac ethnographers are creatures af their own cultures and ap- proach other enltures through their own. Yet I know of no systematic evidence for this (hat see Devereux [1967:124-139] for suggestive anecdotes and see Trigger's 1964 at- fempt ta explain archeological approaches in terms of the sociopolitical milieu of the ar- Cheol) " . Ta one of her most stimulating essays, Mary Douglas (1967) talked aboue the impli- cation of the Nuer having been studied by Englishmen and the Dogon by the French, and, she mused about what might have resulted bad Evans-Pritchard studied the Dogon and Griaule and Dietertin the Nuer. Itseems very logical. But I cannot offer any support from ‘Oceania. Is it possible that the ethnographic discipline isso strang, and the ethaogeaphic apprenticeship so suecessfl, chat all traces ofeuluural arigin are suppressed in the process of becoming an ethnographer? 4. What of other atts ofthe athaographers? This is a more miscellaneous category, but it is necessary in order to be able to include consideration of other personal features of the ethnographers auch as gender, age, race, sexual preference, family status, personal health, and perhaps ever height, any of which could possibly make a difference in what sorts of information might be made available to an ethnographer. All of this could be taken to a ridiculous extreme. For each ethnographer to present a full confessional au- tobiography would be an indulgence (ancl undoubtedly far from full). Yet some of this information may be important (see Devereux 1967:133). There are certainly limits ta the extent we need to get into biographies of ethmagraphers. But I think thac itis fair co say that we do noc yet know what those linits are, ¢, What af diffrent thgratical orientations or esearch plans? This is always the most abviaus and most acknowledged influence, and should be the easiest co establish, The mast dra ‘matic example concerns the effect that the feminist movernent has had on recent ethrog- raphy. It is not simply a matter of the gender of the ethnologist. Indeed, the data on gender effect are quire equivocal (see Divale 1976, Whyte 1978, Martin 1978). Por ex ample, Whyte (1978) found no evidence of gender bias in the specific area of reparts on the status of women, Buc it does seem likely that, in general, male echnogeaphers (or better: ethnographers unaware of the feminist literature in anthropology) will cend to neglect women’s roles in society, Abu Lughad, in her Bedouin ethnography, has tried to account for the effect of ideology and maleness on some of her ethnographic predecessors:Heder] Tut Rastonaw Bevece n While [ would not accuse Mecker, Cato, Bvans-Prtchard Peters, or any others of inappro- pristly projecting their own interests ont a situation ieatrkes me that a felicicouscorespon- dlence between the views of Arab tribesmen and thse of European men has led each co reinforce parccolar interests of the other and sight aver aspects experience and concern, (108640) The srazo man gambit appears as a significant subset ofthese examples, Itis immediately acknowledged but is in f3ct difficult to recognize and dificult to deal with. One cannot help but approach it with bit of hemused cynicism, ‘There are the studies that proclaim a new thearetical approach and demolish ald anes, not so much for pressing scholarly demands but rather because of our need for individual achievement. In her Malinowski Mermorial Lecture, Marilyn Steathera has discussed Malinowski’ own use of such the- retical “straw men” (1901). But the reason this subject is so difficult to deal with is because it raises questions of scholarly integrity that are not always very accessible, pee- haps even to che principal Jf Whatof the situation when the sam ethnographer changes his ar her interpretations ave tine? ore ethnographers do loug-term fieldwork this should come to be more important. I have written abaust my own changes of thought ahout the Dani, the earlier stage of which is reflected in Rabert Gardner's film Dead Birds (1963), of even worse, in my 1965 disser- tation and a colloquium that { presented at Columbia University, and in eanteast, the latter stages of my thinking an the Dani in my 1979 case stady (see also Heider 1996} 4 What of different lengths of tine in the feld? Tn his book on Data Quality Control (1962) Raonl Naoll has suggested that witchcraft is more hkely to he reported by ethnographers sho stay longer than a year in the field than by those studying a shorter time On the other hand, length of stay has no effect on reports of drunken brawling, Gertainly ou the whole, length of stay has an effect an the ethnography. But it is often surprisingly hard 10 pin down from the evidence published in an ethnography. a What of diferent knowledge of languoge, or knoeledge of diferent languages? Surely this rust make a difference, but haw? On the basis of cross-cultural studies, Witkowski (1978), reported no effects for language ability of the ethnographer. But in the case of ethnogra pher's disagreements, relative language Auency would surely be a factor to be considered Tonce heard two people who both claimed linguistic competence give drastically different translations of a phrase shouted at a ceremony. One claimed that it was an interesting symbolic reference, the other heard it as a call to take up arms against the central ‘government. ‘And, what of the difference between those New Guinea studies dove in the vernacular and those done in pidgin English? Ic is hard 10 determine the linguistic basis of most ‘ethnographies (or the linguistic competence of most ethnographers), but coosidering the short time so often spent in the field, I wonder ifthe ethnographer working in pidgin does not have a real advantage over one who spends time trying to learn the vernacular frors scratch, i What of different dogrecsof rapport? This is like the previous factor, but even mare dif- ficult co deal with, We know from informal discussions {and gossip about our colleagues that there are tremencious differences in the ways different ethnographers relate (o the people they are studying, This should surely make a difference in the ethnography, but how? These last three (gh, i) have a status somewhat different from the other factors on the list, since they refer ta relative deficiencies in ethnographic.competence, The phrase “op tinal fieldwark conditions” has been used (c.g, Witkowski 1978} to describe ethnogea- phics based on a stay in the field of more than one year and a working knowledge of the field Language. I think that we can agree that more fieldwork is better than less, more language better than less, and more rapport better than less, ather chings being equal {although a long chummy stay is nat a guarantee of deep insight).® Aupetca Anronorotootst (0, 1988 4. What of different previous fieldwork? Most of us first goto the field at young and impres sionable ages and our notions of eultore (as well as our theories) are ofien strongly shaped by the rst cultures we study. Thus, our subsequent ethnographies may well shaw teaces df the expectations of our first, a process that Devereux has called “carryover” (1957:221) ‘Twa ethnographies that have caused something ofa stit because of their authors’ ex raordinacily negative views of the cultures are Colin Turnbull's book on the Tk (1972) and G. R. Fiallpike's on the Tauade of Papna New Guinea (1977), In each case, the au- thor had previously written a warm and empathetic ethnography about a culture he ob- viously liked. There is undoubtedly an arder effect at work here, in which ceetain features of the second culture are judged more unfavorably against the comparable features of the first. My guess is that the Tauade are not much different from ather New Guinea moun- tain people, but certainly Hallpike isthe first New Guinea ethnographer to have such a negative reaction ip print. Tis surely rime to think about these matters systematically, With few exceptions ane thropologists have lagged hehind ather scholars, mast notably psycholagists. This article is intended to explore some problems that deserve careful consideration by etbnogra phers. Ic boils down to the question: What da we need to know to cesalve contradictions between ethnographers? And this, in turn, leads to the broader question af what we need to know to understand an ethnogeaphy—which in wurn suggests what we need to include in our awn echnographies. Notes Acknowledgment. This paper was written fora sessian an the Rashomon Effect organized by the author for the Association for Sacial Anthropology in Oceania meetings at New Harmony, Indiana, in 1983, Tam greauy indebted co many people who shared their thoughts an Resomsn aver the years, including Keith E, Davis, Beend Lambert, A Thomas Rirsch, and Rober: J. Smith, and especially othe participants inthe various farms that che Rashomon sessions taok at ASAO meet- ings bersece 1961 and 198A, “The phrace “Rashomon Effect" turns que co be immediatly intelligible o ethnagraphers, 0 much so that Claim no credit or inventing it, even thovgh [ cannot recall getting i fram anyone else After eny firs use oft (in che Summer 1980 ASAO Newsletter| [began to hear af ather uses. A. Thomas Kirsch pointed out tome that Ruth-Inge Heinze used the phrase, although she did not claborate on it, saying emerely thac “We have (0 be aware af the Rashomon Bffece"” 19765}, John W, Adams dicected me to Marvin Harris's reference to the Rashomon film to make a similar ppoine (1979321); Barbara Frankel efeered me to M.G. Trend’ 1978 pape ia whicl he recognizes “che Rashomon effect” when a sicuation is analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively (197835). And Frankel hersel bas used the phrase ta teler co somewhat cillerent phenomenon ‘hac oceuts when the ethnographer receives difleent accounts from differen informants (Frankel 1981). HL Russell Bernard refered me co Miles and Hsberman (1384), wha touch on some of these sate issues and wha have in their Index the entry “Rashomon Effect, 140," hue leancot find any Use of che verm on page 140 or elsesehere in their back. Lin Payer used it in the title af a paper #e the 1964 American Anthropological Association meetings. Clearly, is a phrase whose antheopo= logical time as eame. References Cited Abou Lughod, Lila 1966 ” Veiled Sentiments. Honor and Poesry in a Redauin Saclety. Berkeley: University of Cal ora Press. Achinstein, Peter 1968 Concepts af Science, 8 Philosophical Analysis. Balsimor Press Benedict, Ruth 1934" Pacerns of Culture, New York: Houghton Miffin. Bennett, John W. 1946 "The Interpretation of Pueblo Culture. Southwestern Javenal of Anthropology 24(4):361— a johns Hopkins UniversityHeide] ‘Ti Resowon Eevee 1” Carrall, Michael P, T474) ‘The Fifecs of the Functianalist Paradigon Upon the Pereaption of Ethnagraphic Data Philosophy of the Social Sciences 4:65-75. Codere, Helen 1956) ‘The Arable Side of Kwakiut Life. American Anthropologist 58:394-351 Davis, Keith E,, and Thomas O. Mitchell 1985, The Construction of Behavioral Worlds: From Dreams to Computer Software. fx Ad: vances in Deseriptive Psychology, Vol. 4. K. E, Davis and T. O. Micchell, eds. Pp. S16. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Devereux, George 1967 | From Anxiety ta Meckod in the Behavioral Sciences. The Hague: Mavcon, Divale, William Tilia 1975 Temporal Facus and Random Breor in Crass-Cultural Hypochesis Tests. Behavior Sci- ence Research (0{1} 19-36, 1976 Pemale Status and Cultural Evolution: A Study in Ethnogeapher Bias. Behavior Science Research: 11(3):169-211 Douglas, Mary 1975[1967] | Ice Dogon... Jalmplicie Meanings: Essays in Aathtopology. Pp. [24-141 Lone don: Routledge & Kezan Paul Ember, Melvie 1985 Evidence and Science in Exhnography: Reflections an che Feeeman-Mead Controversy American Antheapolagist 87(4):906-$10, Fischer, John E. 1958” The Classification of Residence in Censuses. American Anthropologist 0:S08-517 Forcune, Reo 1939." Arapesh Warfare. American Anthropologist 41:22-#1 Frankel, Barbara 19B{ | The “Rastomon Féfec" and the Pezzled Ethnographer- On the Epistemology af Listen {ng ta Different Voices, Unpublished ms. Freeman, Derek 1983. Margaret Mead and Samoz: The Making and Unmaking af an Anthropological Myth (Cambridge, MA: Harvate University Press. Gardner, Robert 1963 "Dead Bits (le). Gareell, Beverly 1979 | Is Ethnography Possible? A Critique of Afican Odpaty Journal of Anthropological Re- search 35(4) AoA. Goodenough, Ward H. 1956 Residence Rules. Southwestern Journal af Antksapelogy 1222-47 Hallpike, C. R. 147? Bloodshed and Vengeance in the Papua Mountains: The Generation of Conflict in Tauade Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press Hares, Marvin 1478 Cultural Materialism, New York: Random Hause Heider, Karl G. 1979 Grand Valley Dani: Peaceful Warriors. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1986 Dani Pacierns: Ethos, Cogeition, and Sexualigy in the New Guinea Highlards. Unpub- lished ms. Heinze, Rut Inge 1979 Social Tmplicasions of he Relacionships Besween Mediums, Entourage, and Clients ia Singapore Taday. Southwest Asian Journal of Sacal Science 7(1-2):60-80, Hippler, Arthur E. 1351 | The Yolngu and Cultueal Relativiem: A Response to Reser. American Anthropologist 8398-207. Kaplan, Abraham 1968 Poshivicm, Je Internacional Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 12. David L. Sills, 6 Pp. 389-395. New Vork: Free Pressao Augnican Astinorotocier 8, 968 Kemper, Theadore D. 1981 "Social Canstructionist and Pe “Jovenal of Sociology 87(2):336-262, Kuhn, Thames 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revalutian. Chicago: University af Chicago Press Kurasawa, Akira 1969 Rashornon; A File by Akira Kurosawa. New York: Grove Press Lada, John 1957 The Structure of @ Moral Code. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres Lewis, Oscar 1991 "Life ia a Mexican Village: Tepoztlan Restudied. Urhana: University of Minas Press 1953. Tepaztlan Restudied: A Critique of the Folk-Urban Conception of Social Change. Rucal Sociology 18(2):121-1536, 1960 Tepazelan: Village in Mexion, New Yark: Holt, Rinchart and Winston, Martin, M. Marlene 1976) Womea in the HRAF File: A Consideration of Ethnographer Bins. Beh Research 13(4):303-413. MeGoodwin, James R 1978 No Matter Haw We Asked Thers They Convinced Us Tat They Sulfer, Human Orga- nization 57(6):378-393. Mead, Margaret [995 Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. New York: Williatn Morrow, Miles, Matthew B.,and A. Michael Huberman 1984 Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook af New Methads, Beverly Hills: Sage Publica: atoll, Raoul 1962 Data Quality Control: A New Research Technique, New York: Macaillan. 1970 Data Quality Control in Gross-Gultural Surveys. fz A Handbck of Methad in Culeueal ‘Anchropology. R. Naroll and R. Gahen, eds. Pp. 927-945, Garcen City, NY: Nacural History Press. Peneock, James L. 1896 The Authcopological Lens; Harsh Light, Saft Focus. Cambridge: Cambricige University Press Pollner, Melvin 1974 Mundane Reasoning. Philosophy of Sacial Sciences 435-54. 1975 “The Very Coinage of Your Brain”. The Anacomy of Realty Disjunctures, Philosophy ‘ef the Social Sciences 5:41 1-430, Poyer, Lin 1984 The Ngatik Massacre: “Restoman Bifect” af Histarical and Oral Accounts. Paper pees sented at che (904 meetings of the American Amthrapological Association, Denver Precaurt, Walter E 1979. Ideological Bias: A Data Quality Contral Factor for Cross-Cultural Research. Behavior Science Research 14(2}:115-13] Redfield, Rabere 1990. "Tepoztlan, A Mexican Village’ A Study of Folkie. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1960. The Lictle Communicy. Chicago: University af Chicago Press, Reser, Joseph 98) Australian Abociginal Man's Inhumanity to Man: A Case of Culeural Discortion, Amer ican Antheopologist 83:38)-393, Rohner, Ronald P, Bille R. Dewalt, and Robert C. Ness 1973" Edunographic Bias in Cross-Cultural Reseaceh: An Empirical Suudy. Behavior Science Notes 8¢4):278-517, Rosenthal, Rabert 1965. Experimenter Effect in Behavioral Research. New York: levingtan. Shweder, Richard A., and Joan G, Miller 1965. "The Social Construction of the Persan: How Is Ie Possible? fa The Sacial Construction of the Person. Kenneth J. Gergen and Keith E. Davis, eds. Pp. 41-69, New Vark: Springer-Ver lag, tivist Approaches to the Sociology of Emotions, American joral ScienceHeider] ‘ae Rssuovson Besser 8 Schweizer, Thomas 1978 Daca Quality and Data Quality Conteal in, Grost-Culsural Studies. Behavioral Science Research 19(2):125-50. Slater, M-K. 1976 Aftican Odyssey: Ar Anthropological Adventuee. Garden City, NV: Anchar Books, Serathere, Mariya | 1981 Culture in. a Netbag: The Manufacture of a Subdiscipline in Anchropology. MAN 16(4):665-688 Trend, M.G. 1978 On the Reconciliation of Qualitative and Quantitative Amalyses: A Case Study. Human, Orgavization 47(4):385-354 Trigger, Beuce G 1944" Alteruative Archacalogies: Nationalist, Colanialise, Imperialist. MAN 19(3}:355-376, ‘Turnbull, Colin M 1972 “The Mountain People. New York: Simon and Schuster Whyte, Martin King 1973 Cross-Cultural Studies of Woman and the Male Bias Problem. Behavioral Science Re- search 13(1) 65-80 Witkowski, Stanley R 1978 Ethnographic Fieldwork: Optimal versus Non-Optimal Conditions. Behavior Science Research 14) 245-253.