The Epistemology of Qualitative Research

i


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.

i
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).
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.