Review: Writing about Reading

Author(s): Gideon Kunda

Review by: Gideon Kunda
Source: Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Jan., 1993), pp. 13-15
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2074966
Accessed: 19-01-2016 12:56 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. and American Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Contemporary Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 209.175.73.10 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:56:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SYMPOSIUM 13
liberated,some of us. Women,alreadyin a students whohavecollectedtheirdataandare
less authoritative position in the social searchingformodelsto use as theywritetheir
sciences than men, have probablygained stories.
more self-doubtthan self-confidence from Perhapsthosewho learnedto do fieldwork
postmodernist insights.Yet we needn'tfeel a long timeago will benefitthemost.Some
helpless.Rather,we can use theseinsightsto of us mightdecide thattheold lessonsheld
writebetter,morepoliticallyhonestethnogra- more wisdomthancurrentthinking.Others
phies. Instead of adheringto the usual will experiment withnew styles.But we can
conventions,we can see which genrebest make informedchoices among representa-
capturesa cultureas we experienceit. tionalformsonlyifwe areconsciousof them
Can thesebooks help ratherthanconfuse as textualpractices.
graduatestudents?Wolf writesmore about Then again, we might find ourselves
the perilsof postmodernism thanabout the reading about writing-or writingabout
conventions of shortstories,fieldnotes,and writing-insteadof writingour ethnogra-
journal articles. Hence, she gives us the phies. Those of us who, like Wolf, remain
opportunity forstudentsto readthetalesand moreinterested in thecontentof an ethnogra-
figureout among
differences the threegenres. phy than in deconstructingits rhetorichave
Atkinson'sbook wouldbe of specialhelpto otherworkto do.

ReadingEthnographicResearch:A CriticalGuide,by Martyn

Hammersley.London:Longman,1990. 172 pp. NPL paper.ISBN:
0-582-05310-2.
ReadingEthnography, of New
by David Jacobson.Albany:StateUniversity
YorkPress,1991. 138 pp. NPL cloth.ISBN: 0-7914-0546-X.
GIDEON KUNDA
Writingabout Reading Tel AvivUniversity

Ethnography's self-proclaimed mandate-to (1988) pointsout, thedifficulty, perhapsthe

comprehend empathically and representand sheerimpossibility, of integrating thesetwo
objectively
interpret thelifeworldsof various perspectives-ethnography as authorlesssci-
others-traps itself between the seemingly ence,ethnography as author-ized fiction-has
standards
irreconcilable of scienceand of art. raised seriousquestionsaboutthe epistemo-
This conflict,or duality, permeatesthe logical statusand representational powersof
ethnographic community's self-analytic ethnography, its value(s), and its purpose.
metadiscourse. On the one hand is a tradi- Such ambiguity poses problemsnotonlyfor
tional methodologicalconcernwith proce- writersof ethnographybut also for its
duresto establishthe truthof ethnographicreaders-a constituency aboutwhosecredibil-
accounts(Kirkand Miller1986). Although in ity much is assumed yet very little is
the case of ethnographicresearch these established.How and why,then,are readers
concernsare coupledwithconsiderableself- to approachethnographic textsand whatare
doubtandoccasionally borderon thecommon- theyto makeof them?
place, theyare nevertheless thoughtto be Jacobson'sReadingEthnography andHam-
quite indispensable. On the otherhand is a mersley's Reading Ethnographic Research
growingand potentially subversiveconcern attemptanswers to these questions. Both
with the textualpracticesof ethnography.introductory textsset out to respondto the
Herethefocusis on a critiqueofthenarrative challengesof theliterary side of ethnography
and stylisticdevices of "ethnographic real- by shoring up its scientificpole, less
ism"-the genre withinwhich authorsof fashionableof late. Both assume that the
ethnographictextshavetypically attempted to reader of ethnography is-or should be-
constructcrediblearguments(Cliffordand primarily concernedwithevaluatingits argu-
Marcus1986; Van Maanen 1988). As Geertz ments,and both attemptto provide their

This content downloaded from 209.175.73.10 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:56:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14 SYMPOSIUM
impliedreaderwitha generalizableanalytic searchof truthcan hope to findare better
framework foraccomplishing thistask. theories(his sympathies seem to lie withthe
Of the two, ReadingEthnography is the mode of action perspective)and sounder
more modest.The author'sanalyticframe- arguments.
work, developed from an anthropological Reading EthnographicResearch is more
perspective, is quitesimple.Jacobsondefines ambitious.Althoughit is based on less
ethnography as a coherent representation and impressive textualexamples(minorsociolog-
interpretation of humanactionwithdescrip- ical case studiesof thenutsand boltsvariety,
tivefactsas supporting evidence.By evalua- someof themhisown),thebookconstructs a
tion he means, primarily,exploringthe broaderand more nuanced framework for
relationshipbetweenclaimsandevidence.To evaluatingethnographic arguments.At the
accomplishthis he distinguishes, following outset Hammersleyacknowledgesand at-
Firth(1975), two majortheoretical positions temptsto incorporate some of theinsightsof
fromwhichanthropologists have formulated thecriticsof ethnographic realism.Thus, he
theirclaims:"modesofthought" and "modes proposesthe quite usefulnotionof "subtle
of action,"or a focuson ideationalstructuresrealism"-a concession that knowledgeis
as opposed to behavioralprocesses.Claims alwaysuncertain and the likelihoodof error
derivedfromeach of these vantagepoints, always present.This, however,amountsto
Jacobson argues, require appropriateevi- littlemorethanlip service,sincehe thenasks
dence.The essenceofthereaders'task,then, readersto acceptunquestioningly his faithin
is to sort out claims and evidence and to an independent socialrealityandtheconcom-
determine whether or nottheyindeedsupport itantaxiomaticbelief that the purpose of
each other. ethnographic researchis to accumulateuseful
Jacobsonillustratesthe usefulnessof his scientific knowledge.
framework witha seriesof briefreviewsof Evaluation of ethnographicarguments,
well-known anthropological textsthatexem- fromthisperspective, requirestwo typesof
plify,he claims,different stylesof modesof judgments:validityand relevance.Validity,
thoughtand modes of action ethnography.as in Jacobson'sanalysis,is the extentto
Althoughthelogic underlying his categoriza- whichan accountaccurately representssocial
tionandperiodization of anthropological texts phenomena.To thisend Hammersley offers
and his decisionto omitexamplesof more readersuseful categoriesfor assessing the
recentexperimental workare open to ques- relationship of claimsand evidence:a classi-
tion, the reviews do pick apart specific ficationoftypesofclaimsandtypesoferrors,
ethnographicargumentsand expose such a distinction betweenfactsandvalues,and so
problemsas weak and inconclusiveargu- forth.Relevance is the extentto which a
ments,circularreasoning,and a shortageof studyaddressesproblemsdeemed"important
evidence. to some public concern"and the extentto
The moregeneralconclusion,however,is which it makes "a contribution to knowl-
less convincing.Jacobsonsuggeststhat a edge." Here,as he himselfacknowledges, he
prioritheoreticalassumptionspredetermineis on shakierground:relevanceis harderto
thenatureof claimsand theirrelationship to establishand to agreeuponthanvalidity, and
evidence. Probingfurther into this insight thejustificationfortheexerciseis notentirely
(insightful,it mustbe said, only againsta clear.Nevertheless, in bothcases, Hammers-
rathernaive baseline) would embroil his ley insists,thereis an underlying objective
readers,of course,in the deeperparadoxes truthabout whicha readercan and should
and unavoidablecircularity of ethnographicmake both factual and value judgments.
claims,and necessarilylead to an examina- Whenin doubt-as will oftenbe thecase-
tion of the authorialfunctionin the text. readersare advisedto makejudgmentsthat
Here,however,he does littlemorethanoffer are "reasonable,"his favorite criterion,often
some perfunctory and poorlyillustrated(if used as an epistemologicalanchorfor the
occasionallysatisfying) swipesat theclaims truth(or its close approximation) but never
of thosewho have attempted to addressthese clarified.
issues. Rather,Jacobsonprefersto retreat to Thus Hammersley, like Jacobson,cannot
the safer,overlyoptimistic,and somewhat avoidencountering subjectivelimitsto objec-
tautologicalintimation thatwhat readersin tiveclaims.If Jacobsonseeksreassurance in

This content downloaded from 209.175.73.10 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:56:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SYMPOSIUM 15
thepossibility of bettertheory, Hammersley, rhetoric (others'as well as theirown) norto
in additionto his qualificationabout the respondhead-onto the perspectiveof those
inherent uncertainty of knowledge,fallsback who have.
on an idealized and seeminglyunreflective The futureof ethnography (and, in some
belief in the workingproceduresof the sense, its past) depends on both what
scientificcommunityas the ultimatesafe- ethnographers chooseto do inthefaceoftheir
guard of truth(or, at least, of more valid predicament andwhatreaderschooseto make
knowledge).His image of ethnographers as of it. It is possible,as somehaveargued,that
an earnestarmyof coordinatedproposition ethnography must returnto realism-albeit
testersand consensusseekersmightindeed less self-assured, less patronizing of readers,
reassuresome beginningreaders;however, morein stepwiththeintellectual tenorof the
forthoseacquaintedwiththesecommunities, times-if it is to retainitscredibility (Kunda
hisviews-devoid of anytraceof irony,even 1992). But to do so, as Clifford and Marcus
self-doubt-mightappearnaive,perhapseven (1986, p. 26) suggest, both writersand
threatening if takenseriously,and certainly readersof ethnography musthaveleftrealism
jarringto ethnographic sensibilities. in thefirstplace; outlining thecoursesucha
The books, then,are a mixedbag. Their journeymusttakeis something bothtextsfail
contribution lies, I believe, in returningto accomplish.
readers' attentionto the unavoidableques-
tions of reasoningand verification that a
commitment to science,in whatever formand References
withwhatever mustraise.Both
qualifications,
booksarea usefulplace forstudents orrecent Clifford,Jamesand GeorgeE. Marcus. 1986. Writing
Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography.
initiatesto starttheirprofessionalrites of Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress.
passage: they offerusable analyticframe- Firth,Raymond.1975. "An Appraisalof ModemSocial
works with (and against) which to ask Anthropology." AnnualReviewof Anthropology 4:1-
questions,and someilluminating examplesof 25.
Clifford.1988. Worksand Lives: TheAnthropol-
theirapplication.Both are also a welcome Geertz,ogistas Author.Stanford: Stanford Press.
University
andnecessaryreminder of thefactsof lifefor Kirk,Jeromeand Marc L. Miller.1986. Reliabilityand
more advanced readers overwhelmedor Validityin QualitativeResearch.BeverlyHills, CA:
annoyedby the excesses of rhetoricalself- Sage.
analysis.However,theydo not manageto Kunda,Gideon.1992. Engineering Culture:Controland
Commitment in a High-TechCorporation.Philadel-
addressethnography's inherentduality.De- phia:TempleUniversity Press.
spite claims to the contrary,they choose Van Maanen,John.1988. Tales oftheField: On Writing
neitherto reflecton the limitsof scientific Ethnography. Chicago:University of ChicagoPress.

This content downloaded from 209.175.73.10 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:56:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions