ELD RELATIONS pAlff J:fl

and years in the field, and how tlr .

204 tiaekroo'"s ol rackeceering. While che irnagined moral concours ol rnanY of ttiese sett1ngs rn1ght be cJeaf to researchers at die start and have tieell prepared for. in orne chey can present iooming tionzons of unforeseen actions. expec­aoons and ,;sl<S. lt is not uncornrnon in field­worlc- for exarnple. for die relacively relaJCed and unpretenoous ai:rnosphere of subjects' tiomes to beCollle, wich che shifting locales of subjeCU' daily ¡¡ves, irnrnersed in unconven­oonal and surpnsingly precarious accivities. This affectS research relacions in a way that the con­venoonal sociability of the intervieW rarely pases for parcicipantS. Subjects' liVeS are open to a research surveillance in fieldwork well be)'Olld what they rnight agree co in intervieW research· Open to view can be the full range of c1rcumstances that comprise the day and the night for a particular way of life. These, too. mean that field relacions p0se a different breed ol challenges trom those present in interview.

The chapters of Part 3 present these issues as they occur. unfold, and are dealt with in prac­oce. The authors instruct us in what it means in praroce to spend days. weeks. if not months

comm1unent affects the social 1

is ti"' re ati .. ,, the researcher and the resea h Oris Of

' h re ed Delamonts c apter. comparing the :. Sara fieldwork typifying anthropologis:ad1tion Of immersions in lengths of time and · features

. 1

social· tion relat1ve y uncommon for 5 . 1so1a.

1 . d. . h oc1ol0o·

which resu t in 1st1nct e allenges for -51ses, panes. Jn the context of field research Pilrtici. issues can expand precipitous~· as 1.' ethlCal

· '1• •Ves their welfare, not JUSt the reciprociti and interview and a rather limited body efs of the

' . b o ex ..... . ential in1ormat1on, can e at stake. As .. ~r1. Ryen explains in Chapter 14, ethics link Anne much with culture and communica•:o up as ... n as th present themselves as moral issues to 'Y concemed. Danger. hostility and political ~ose tivities can emerge to confront research ensi­

ipants. in ways ~at ar~ mostly talked a~~~ interv1ews, as N1gel F1eldmg (Chapter IS) Les Back (Chapter 16) explain in their e and

. b d Ontr1. butions. lt 1s a un antly clear that the s . oc1al relations of fieldwork are anything bue sim ly macter of a suitable research encounce/ da

JI . an

proper data-co ect1on procedure.

--------.... ,, 13

Ethnography and participant observation

Sara Delamont

canyon. smokc from mcat fircs driflcd pown ':e ccdar and mcsquitc trccs, and if 1 squintcd 1hiOugh . thc sun ·s sctting, 1 could almost prctcnd that fllY cyCS :ldicrs in silvcr chcst armour and bladcd hcl-5pan15h long dcad racc of huntcrs wcrc cncampcd on rn<=IS or 8

. des Or maybc cvcn old compatriots in but-¡jiOSC b1il SI · . . d f .

brown wcnding thcir way in an out o h1story -icrnut hurian, thcir carnstcr-nppcd colors unfurlcd gallanl, Arti·og smokc. thc fatal light in thcir faces a · 1hcro11 . '" . that thc conicst is ncvcr qmic ovcr, thc field o:mindcr ncvcr quite mus.

Lee Burke (1993: 344) captures, in the JaJ1le5 graph of In the Electric Mist with the finarfil PJ::aie Dead, ali the important things about Con e aphy We need to use ali our senses: ethnogr · · d h (S 1

11 Sl.ght hearmg, taste an touc to ler, sme • ' 11 d ºft h 1989

; Wafer, 1991 ). Sme s. n , we ave to · t to see in the ro1lmg (1.e., turbtd) smoke.

squ1n h O fieldsite may be among unter gatherers, or mi . . S nish soldiers. Our contest ts never quite over, ~r field is never quite ours. And, of course, if :re were ali able to write as weH as Burk~ the social sciences would be much ncher. Wntmg well is particularly importan! in qualitative research, al ali stages from planning to publica­rion. So too is reading: reading wisely and

• widely throughout the process (~elamont, 2002). This chapter shows how part1c1pant observa­

rion is actually done. The processes of conduct­ing observational research will be explained and illustrated with examples from ethnO!:,'Taphies. There are three sections. The first section explores what is meant by ' ethnography', 'field­work ' and 'participant observation', locales

11 these three tenns in relation to the wider tenn 'qualitative research' and clarifies their place in anthropology and sociology. In the second part, ways in which ethnography is done in anthropol­cgy and sociolo¡,ry will be contrasted using four fictional researchers. Third the processes of cond · ' uctmg ethnographic research are explained

with three . subsections on watching, recording and ~eflect.ton . The reflection section will, by defimtion, mclude material on how ethnographic research is wrinen and how it is read. The ' watch­ing'. section explores the cycle from access nego­ttallons through to exit from thc field.

Two bodies of scholarship will be drawn on -anthropology and sociology. Sorne coverage of the history of the method in each discipline ensures that the pioneers in anthropology such as Boas and Malinowski, Zora Neale Hurston and Camilla Wedgwood on the one hand, and in socio­Jogy of the women and men of Chicago on the other, are recognized. From the anthropological side, examples come from the anthropology of Europe (Delamont, 1995). Research conducted on British social anthropologists (Delamont et al., 2000a) is also drawn upon. lnterviews were conducted with lecturers and doctoral students in four universities: ali universities ('Kingford', 'Southersham', 'Masonbridge' and 'Latchendon') and respondents are protected by pseudonyms. My own background is in anthro­pology: the British variety taught at Cambridge in the 1960s. I was taught by Edmund Leach (1984, 2001), one of Britain's greatest anthro­pologists, who introduced structuralism to the UK. After graduation 1 decided to use anthropo­logical methods in the British educational system, and thereforefaute .de mieux 1 bec~me a sociologist. In that era, domg fieldwork m the UK made a career as an anthropologist almost impossible (on this point see Jackson, 1987, and Pink, 2000). The interview with Dr Hemck of Masonbridge (Delamont et al., 2~00a:. 7.5) reflects on this: ' My PhD was done m Bntam, which was extremely unusual at that ttme m Britain . . . most people feel who've worked m Britain that that kind of work was not parti.cu-

. · h thropolog1cal larly regarded by the Bntts an establishment as proper anthropology . . . the

----111

flELD RELATIONS

1 1 rela1ed tcrrns - ethno­

niere are thiet e ose .Y. t obsfrvation - ali of . .-hy. fiddwork. participand r term qualitative 5'"'!'": .... rt of a w1 e • which are .--:· . researth can include rnanY researtll- Quah&a_ª:Ch as manY varieties of inter-_ ditferctll methOds· .· k and rhc collection ol . ..,.,.. '""'"UltY "or • 11 vicw • ....,..... .. - d mental maps. as we as

__,,,..,,, constlllcts an . · !"''--. The vast majority of the quahtall~C otiscn'llllOO· ed . the ruo<t ¡wenty years IO d1s-sllJ(ÜCS cooduCI JO Y- d e· lines other than anthropology have been base : in~'S of one sort or another rather. than

thnOl,'fBJlhY as Atkinson ( 1997), Atk1nson :Í~i~vemian ( 1997), Delarnont ( 1997) an.d [)c]arnOlll et aL (l000b) havc pointed out Th1s cblp!Cr is aboUl proper ethnography. that is. part1-cipanl otiscrvation done dunng fieldworlc

Participan! observation. ethnography and fieldwork are ali used interchangeably m the ht­cranue. and are therefore synonyrnous: they can all mean spending long periods watchmg people. coupled with talking to them about what they are doing. thinking and saying, designed to see how tbey understand their world. 1 use ethnography as the most inclusive term, with participan! Qbservation and fieldwork being useful descrip­tions of the data-collcction technique and the localioo of data collcction. Fieldwork is the data­colkction pilase of the research process, espe­cially when researchers leave the university and go out into the world. So a person who sent out posW questionnaires would probably not talk of fieldwork. whereas an investigator doing partici­pmnt observation, or ethnographic interviewing, m a factory. a hospital, a school or a village in Portugal would do so. The tenn can cover col­lecting qwmtitative data (for example a census) if diese data are collected 'in the field', especially lbing a period of ethnographic observation. We can therefore define the term for this chapter as follows: F~ldwork is the term used in qualitative mearch 10 co•·er the data-collection phase when ~ m•·esugators leave their desks and go out JDIO the f~ld'. ·The field' is metaphorical: it is

llOI ªreal field, but a sening ora population. Participan! obseí\·ation is used to cover a mix­

::: of observa!!ºº. and interviewing. In the field cul rcsean:hcrs a1m 1s to understand how the

tures !bey are studying ' work., that is, to grasp

what the world looks like to tb in the fishing village, the boar~· peop)e Who 1 rnining community. The rescar •hng schoo1 0 •ve

h . h . . c ers n r •• -

covcr w al t e1r peoplc believe· eed to d~ie al work and m their le1sure tim~ ·What they is. 1hem Jaugh, cry and rage; who the What lllak do and fear; and ho~ they choosc thei Y l~ve, ha es endure their relat1ons. This is do br fnendi, le . ne y 1 ª"d the people be1~g stud1ed, watchin , •vmg \Vi and play .• thmkmg carefully about : them wo~ interpretmg 1t and talkmg to thc . hat is sce . . . actors 1 n, the emergmg mterpretat1ons. The o check

' b . d terrn· pant o servallon oes not usually . Part1c1. ticipation: researchers do not usua~ean real par. teach classes or dig coal, rathcr the Y catch fish things bcing done, and 'hclp' occ Y.watch the~ . . . as1onal1 1 1mportant to part1c1patc enough 1 be y. t is

write fcelingly about the naturc of ~h able tQ pams and pleasures, smells and sou de work: its and mental stresses. Howevcr, th~ ~~physica¡ cannot actually spend the whole f searchcr

h d. . •me fish·

teac mg or 1ggmg coal, becausc that mg, vcnt both studying other members of~~uld Pre­world and, perhaps more vitally, time e social ing thc fieldnotes, thinking about the sr,~1 wn1-writmg down those thoughts, and syste•c ~ork,

h · · ·

1 · mat1cally

tcstmg t e milla ms1ghts in the setting S • tic1pant' does not mean doing what th~ obep.ar-

b d d b . . se mg

o serve o, ut mtcractmg wllh them wh"I h do it. The researcher may do the same thi~ e

1

bey that is no/ a requirement. gs, ut

In traditional anthropological fieldw k

h d. m ,

researc ers go to a 1stant location, possibly in an underdeveloped country the other sidc of the world, and the fieldwork may last two years or more. In socwlog1cal research, the field is more usually visited on a daily basis with researchers retuming to their home al night. Thcse are the two main types of fieldwork, which we can gloss as total immersion and partial immersion. In anthropology and sorne varieties of sociology, researchers have traditionally moved to live al the fieldsite: in the fishing village, in the board­ing school, on the housing estate next to the coa! mine. In such cases rcsearchers are totally immersed in the culture under study, twenty-four hours a day. Most observational research in socio­logy and education and the applied disciplines is based on a more partial immersion: researchers eat, sleep and relax at home but spend a large chunk of the twenty-four-hour period in the factory, the hospital or the school. The biggest difference between these is probably the amount of intellectual and emotional support ava1lable from academic supervisors or colleagues. In total immersion fieldwork researchers may be very isolated, very lonely, and lose their way. Contact is likely to be by letter, often with a long urne-lag

ETHNOGRAPHY AN D PARTICIPAN

d TOBSERV

despatch an any advice arrivin , ti ATION ,een

1 d · 1 . g rom 11<''.:e Jn ¡,oth tlota an pda~1a immersion field- survey and statistical . 207

IJO••· · bCing fu) y engage m another culture is a was robustl techniques en· "ºr~· " non. When the research is done h spread 10 01~ empirical, and th•.cago sociology ,ifle qll ali ethno!,>TaPhy: a theorized accou'

11 ~ (Decgan 19:~ cemres of sociolo

15 cmpiricism

,tsull 1~,..., studied with ethnographic mcth~ 0 the mos; importa' 2

001 ). In Chica;~ m hthe USA illl c11h.,.- s. world f nt sociolob'Y d , w •ch was

sivc . ~om 1892 until 1935 epartment in the

of f~~i~~n~~· 1~~nob'Taphi~ i::t~~s h~11mas-

. nogr.iphY has a long history i.n both social ~tll cultural anthrop_ology and m sociology. all~hToPologists s!lll hke to cla1m that they have .~n e~cJusive custody of the real, true ethno­thl h (Delamont et al., 2000a) and rely on thcir ~p J the rnethod to dist!nguish themselves U>cioricallY from other social sci~ntists. As a illhD student at Sout.hersham, Lou1sa Montoya, P d

5. •The quahtat1ve methods used in anthro-

101 ll . fi h. d" . . lo!D' are speci 1c to t 1s 1sc1plme.' Hirsch and ~llnerC2001) feel able to state that while other disciplines may do .ºr cla1m to do ethnographic f¡eidwork, th.e term an ethnography' to r~fer to a monograph 1s confined to anthropolog1cal cir­c1cs' (p. J). In the face ofsuch claims, arguments ¡hal there is a con.ve~gence betw~en anthropol­O'l.Y and other d1sc1phnes seem ummpressive. lt i; uue that anthropologists have used ethno­g¡aphY as their mam meth~. and. that no other iechnique ( expenment, quas1-expenment, survey, observation w1th pre-spec1 fied schedule, ques­iionnaire-based interviews, life history collec­tion, archiva) or o~her documentary scrutiny, or narrative analys1s) has ever rivalled it. Anthropologists have used sorne other tech­niques as subsidiaries to living in a culture full time, but only as subsidiaries (Faubion 2001 · Macdonald, 2001 ). In the USA, Boas is ~een ~ ihe pi.oneer of fieldwork, inspiring disciples mcludmg Ruth Benedict and Margare! Mead (see Behar and Gordon, 1995). Zora Neale Hurston's work prefigures much contemporary debate (Hernandez, 1995). In the UK., Malinowski ~. usually credi~ed with inventing fieldwork, and bis d1sc1ples mcluded Audrey Richards and

f:~~.la Wedgwood (Leach, 1984; Lutk.ehaus,

an:io~~ogy has u_sed . ethnography as long as

O" p gy, that is, smce the l 890s but it has uen been f: h" ' E!lmogra h u~ as tonable, a minority pursuit.

dominati~ Y. as n.ever had the status, and sole anthropolon, m~ocwlogy that it had, and has, in methods gy. thnography and other qualitative

were pío d . neere at Ch1cago, alongside

LcC.ompte, 1998). carly 1960s (Plan, ¡~~~ Smce the mid-1 ,

of qual"ta · 970s there h be , ~ t1ve methods in . as en a rcbirth growth m their po ul . . soc1ology and a ra id nursmg studies ~nd a:% m edui:ation, geograp~y Atkmson et al. , 2001) Jo er social sciences (se~ books and confercnc~s h umals, textbooks, hand-growth has not, h ave all developed Th. anthr owever united · · •s

opological uses r' h sociological and and Atldnson, 1995) ºin t e method (Delamont have been severa) . the .Past decade therc traditional ethnogra ªf:°c.alyphc statements that wrong, but in this ph y is dead. That is simply rehearse the argumecn~pter füere is no space to where (Delamont et al, ~~~~b~re covered else-2003). Traditional eth ' Atkmson et al. , strongly as ever. no¡,'Taphy continues as

:~L~~~~ING ETHNOGRAPHY O DISCIPLINES

To illustrate so · 1 · ethnography ~~ og1cal versus anthropological researchers 'start1"ngcan ·1chonRtrast four fictional

' w1 achel Ve · de anthropologist, and Lucilla M . . nn r, an logist, both doing PhDs at s:!:b~nks, a socio­students _are used for these fict7o!i ~~I because, m practice, the bulk of the ethnop . s ~esear~h done in both disciplines is actuaIT;~~~~ i:cte by doctoral students or junior scholars

cause semor ones can rarely get time or mone' to conduct sustained fíeldwork themselve{ The~e. two fictional characters are based o~ e.mpmcal research on young scholars, the pub­hshed au~obiographical reports on fieldwork, an.d expenence watching young colleagues over th1rty years.

l~agine Rache) Verinder has graduated in social anthropology, and has been offered a sch_olars.hip to do a PhD at Boarbridge Umver.s1ty. She and her thesis supervisor, Dr Selma Goby, decide that Rachel should do research on Galicia, a region in north-westem Spain, and the Galician separatist movement. Rache) did A-level Spanish and has spent severa) holidays there since, and she is interested in Atlantic maritime cultures, the lives of women in físhing communities and regionalist movements

FIELD RELATIONS

JOI achel stays in . . for nine rnont:~o~lcdge of social in Euroi>C· . rnproving her hropology of aoerl>ndge. 1 especially the . ant reading aboul ant/\rOPOlndogyo.t' rnaritirnc soc1e11es, ·"d learning E,,ft.,,,,. a . of spain. .... . "':'Y" anJ other regions cks appropn-

Gahc1a Then she Pª . d 1 die GaJician language. ment for collecnng a d ate clothes and equ1p ra. minidisk recorder,fian uch as a digital carne and sets off rom

~ots of noteboOks and ~:~'antander. When she Boarbridgc for the ferry d. for Galicia, and lands in Spain she hea ,; where she will hve searches out a fishing v~a~he has to try severa! for the next ycar o~ n~ ~ one that has a bus villages befare sho in has a family who are service to the nearest town, and has fishing boats prepared to rent her a.room. rch is similar to that still working. Rache! ~~e:::rg. 1988), American done by Canad1an (~6 Australian (Jusi, 2000) (Recd-Danahay, 19 d ),1996) anthropologists in and Bnnsh ¡Goddar • . Europe over the past ~h17~:ª:· the same time,

Lucilla MaJonban s s rvisor Dr Henry d d ·des with her supe •

an ec1 ·h ·11 do an ethnography of stu-Ccntum, .1h.at s e ;:; laboratory technicians at a

~:e:~~~~7i~~ (vocacional) college. Tbh~re is a ata college, 'Midhurst', m Boar n ge, so

~~~can live ·at home'. She spends about s1~ months reviewing the literature on vocauona education on laboratory technicians, on sc1ence and tech~ology education and on . quahtauve

thods Dr Centum insists that Luc1lla wntes a ~ oí.her methods chapter, a review of the lilerature. and a 2000-word paper on her fore­shadowed problems, thal is, che ideas she expects

10 develop during the observauon. On~e her ideas are clear, Lucilla writes to the Pnnc1pal of Midhursl College. to ask for access both to the institution and to the specific course. He agrees, and despatches her to the staff who teach it; they agree, and she is able to start her data collecuon with a fresh cohon of students in September, a year after she began to be a student. (Outwith the USA clearance from Human Subject Committees is needed only for medica) research.) This will produce a sociologicaJ ethnography of an educa­tional institution like those done by American (Raissiguier, 1994; Valli, 1986), Australian (Walker, 1988) and British (Gleeson and Mardle, 1980; Riseborough, 1993) investigators.

Meanwhile in Galicia, Rachel starts her field­work. Tbe most imponant pan is living in the village, and watching what goes on. When it is not feasible to join in, she will watch what she is allow~ to. Once the villagers have got used to her ~mg around, watching is supplemented with talkmg. Rache) talles informally to everyone ~•ble, does formal interviews with people,

collecting their family trees and he . stories, plus gathcring folk tales ilnng lheir 1. · · k and ·~ lfe tening to goss1p, JO es and leg ds""ngs 1. . · 1 en A • 1:¡. worker 1s hke Y to draw maps of th · . fie)d the insides of houses, of the grave e V11Jage ·

· J Yard d' • of of the seatmg P ans at weddings 0 ~ • 1ª!llarns layout of fishing boats and anythin r Unerais, !he a spatial angle. Rache) will count ~ else lhat has residents in the village, count the fi e hnull'lber of measure the sizes of fields, orcha;~ ing boais iures, count cows, sheep and pigs, esitnd J>as'. size of the fishmg catch, work out h lllate the courists come, how many ~copie get theº: ll'lany day, how many cars, taxis, motor scao USeach even bicycles there are, how many u . ters and school and so on. P P1ls in !he

Jt will be important to hear wh Galician and who does not, and whc

0 8Jleaks and Castilian (Spanish) are used. lf; Gahcian allowed on a fishing boat she will go .facheJ is will find out why women are not allo~ dnot she on them. The lives of the women wi)) e to sail be eas.icr for her to ob~erve than those 0~~~bly there 1s separallst pol.1t1cal activity, Rache! n. _ir try to attend any mectmgs, meet the acti . wiH

h . . . v1s1s and

discover w at 1s motlvatmg them. A.pan fro what she can s.ee, and what she can Jeam b /" tening and askmg, there may also be docu Y is.

1 . h d d . ments Rache m1g t spen ays m the provincial . · tal working on municipal archiva! material capi-

h d I ) .. ,Otm the cal e ra or ecc es1ast1cal records, or both lf the Galician regionalist movement has produ~ed newsletters, pamphlets or books, these will ali be read. Rache) m1ght get the schoolchildren to write her something, or ask to read letters senr home by villagers living abroad.

While Rachel is in Galicia, Lucilla is doing her ethnography ofthe students in the vocational col­lege, in Boarbridge. Lucilla can intersperse her data collection with teaching undergraduates, going to seminars, seeing her supervisor every week and using the library. She is only in the field for short periods of sorne days, does not have to leam a foreign language or eat strange food. She goes to the college nearly every day, sits in the lectures and workshops, writing pages and pages of fieldnotes. She interviews the lecturers, formally and informally, and she hangs out with the students, sometimes going out with them socially. She talks to them in their breaks, and she interviews them formally too.

One difference between Rache! and Lucilla's fieldwork is the focus of the research. Lucilla and Dr Centum try to keep very tightly focused on ª pre-specified tapie: the occupational soc1ahza­tion and student culture of the trainee laboratory technicians (see Coffey and Atkinson, 1994). To gather data on the catering staff, or the fine art

ETHNOGRAPHY ANO PART1c1PANT

· Ol!ISEitv . course, or the people takmg academ· ..t.T10N ·1111on 1 Id be . ic d

p.-CI t night schoo ' ~ou a d1straction one, she sta . 20<l ~iolosY 3

roject. a d1vers1on. lf Lucilla drifted' villagc, and 10ns to PUblish llrlicl , Jitlerent p would force her back to ' her' topic' erable time, sownie a book. That es about 'her' ~r centu~ Rache) is more likely to settle on ~ Village, the boo~".,:1 if Rache! spe~~s a consid-n contfllS only on her retum to Boarbridge. She or so. Jane Cow ould probably a 000 in her 1.,tit foeus et rnore. because once 'home' she i fieldwork in Soh an'. for example r:fªr in 200s : 10 co_ll~cally, able to go back. Lucilla, i~ :hD in 1988, ar: In the 1983-s ·pe;~er rnain

01 rt'11J1s n retum to consult documenrs or re achel 's career a"~bhshed her book ~ go1 her n • t, ca d · d - lect . •u:r he Ph in 199() '()nlfllS articipants; an m eed much of what uresh1p and ret r D should in IUd . '"1erv1ew ped is not 'in the field ', but in Jibraries over the next ten y um to Ga!icia pen·odc . e ª 1" y ne · B b ·d next · ears or . 1cally ;11e J!l3 s elsewhere m .oar . n ge. . p1ece of research so. She might do Jlld oftíce hel goes on hvmg m the village she region of Spain (e 0~ Gahc1ans in sorne 0~er

p.s Racthat she has been tol? different things :nother country su~gh as atalonia) or working ~~ ,.ill find nt people and she w11l set out to find nd Buechler, J 98 I 198~w11zerland (Buechl b)' d1ffereAs her Galician improves, she will spot separatist movemen; in ). She rnight study er iJlll wtiY· Je were Jying to her, and find out wby froAt the end of her yea~~o~her country. a t113l peodp so 11 is common, for example for . m Midhurst, although h cilla, too, withdraws

d1 · · ' views · h s e m1 h · ¡11tY 10 think that outs1ders are tax inspectors 1

. wit the trainees g t s111J do inter-,-illagers ts spies or other undesirables. As he; hramees when they go 0 or staff, or meet the (IA. agendi~g of the people and the place deep- f~J~e ~ecided to re-interv~~!og~ther. She cou)d und<~el will be able to come up with more be ow up stage ofthe project ~~lmh as a formal ens. e questions to ask: to cross-check her 8 cause she and her infi · 1 ese are casy and .J!l~; corroborate earlier information, to test ~~rbndge. Lucilla too ne~~~:ts are . ali in ¡,Jeasd eloping hypotheses. She also makes 11 1

(although she shou/d hav be orgamze her her ev nd gets involved. ~ I~ ong, transcribing intervie: en do1ng this f¡iends~ucilla spends more time in Midhurst : ~otes and interview transe~' ~d putting her

1 ~: e of Further Education she discovers that the: e collect~d them). Usingp a ~: A.tlasT1 [o~ 0~ the Jecturers bitterly resent her presence. publ~h s:e wntes her PhD, and then i:l~gicaJ ~ne is openly rude, the other keeps suggesting severa! Pe~rs and 1deally a book. This te! ;:k~~ ,, does not come to hts c lasses because they are but h ~ · Perhaps she too gets a le 1 h'

s... . • • h 1 d -11 b . s e1smuchles l'k 1 cures 1p ti.ne' 'bonng or t e a s wt e usmg bad re stud . s 1 e y to revisit Mi'dh • ·rou • . . . . . - y tramee 1 b urst or

1 guage'. Th1s man has temble d1sc1pltne prob- FE· h ª oratory technicians 0 ' an h · h ' . er career wo Id be r even lems which make watc mg 1s classes embar- next p . ~ enhanced by doing h

' d d ' l'k h roJect on ad ffi . er ~'sing. The ru e man ts 1 es t e changes in of b' 1 . 1. erent top1c, perhaps a te ·~ . 1 d . h h to og1sts workm ' am English vocat1ona e ucatlon t at ave occurred stem cells g on mosquito control or ol'erthe past twenty years. He yeams for the 'old lf R h. l V . .

· ] d · ace ermder1 · days' when vocat1ona ~ ucat1on was d.ominated researcher she h s gomg to be a successful by young male apprent1ces who carne m on day village and come~ to go to. her Galician fishing release to leam trades. Both these men refuse to her d ta Sh . o~e ag~m to Boarbridge with be interviewed, and will not talk to her in the diet s~ · : ~ ª failure tf she hates the staple common room or dining hall. They see her as the sayin tmh uc .

11t at she comes ~orne after a week,

· · • · ,. g e v1 agers are barb H umvers1ty s spy, oras an m1ormer working for is al i .1

. anans. owever, she !he Principal. The other staff are friendly, and not than s~ ª Gat ~re if she becomes more Galician

, at all interested in what Lucilla is doing. The di c~ll ahcians. lf Rache! stops writing her srudents are puzzled by her research: it is not ¡¡:;'~n a:t~ng and .recordmg data, and thinking sc1en11fic. They are going to getjobs in laborato- Ji •ht of opol?gist, and becomes a leading nes m proper subjects like electrical engineering stfe has .t~e Gahcta~ separaust mov~ment, tben and computer science. Overwhelmingly male R h 1 1 gon.e nattve . lf Dr Goby VISlts and finds lhey are tolerant of Lucilla, but su ' est she is to~ ac ~ 'eadmg t~e protest. march on Madrid, or scruffy to get a husband and ough~o dr plantmg a bomb m the poltce post, or organizing smanly. ess more a school boycott, she would have every reason to

' At the end of he accuse her of 'going native' . For Lucilla to 'go r year or more Rache! pack t' • · ·

up her stuff and retums to 8 b ·<l s na 1ve is poss1ble, but more complicated. lf she SO!ts out her data and ¡ k oar rt ge. There s_he marries one of the students or staff, if she aban-th1ch to organize th p e ~ ~ central theme ~1th dons the PhD to train as an FE lecturer, if she theory, and orga . .em. h smg anthropolog1cal decides to retrain as a laboratory technician her-~eme, she write ~IZl~i er d~ta around that self, or become a researcher or officer for the

s ª D thes1s. Once that is technicians' trade union, then she has gone

~------·1111111------- ---·

FIELD ftEL.ATIONS

110 n with people . . s0mc1imcs luiPJ'C who atiandon

1111i•-C· lbi> ~\ 11talth scmng» rse but it 1s do1ni: fid<h> irai~ as a doctor or/c~~caiion or of sociollllll' 11' . • .... ··~·iologY 0

~1nu,.,..,..

nol e. . .. h and carcers look settlll'c· 1 nd Lucilla's ri.'SCarcl 1·fy as anrhro-

Rachc a h rd io e ass h . . • nJ ~ not a .-11 bclong 10 t e d•~=l~ sociology ~ac~~~logists and thhe po vo.: . f Soe1al "" · · pubhS ,usociauon o , al Assoc1a11on. . 1 . menean Anthropolog1c " ·al A111h1vpo/11g1c~ to thc Joumul of the ¡;h~o/ogM. Lucilla w1ll

. --" Amennin . ". 1 Assoc1auon 111.~titlll<' "'"' . . h sociolog1ca d belong 10 thc. Bn!IS . o ical Association. an and the Amcncan Socio! g Jua/italil'<' S1ud1es 111

publish in 5<1ciJ1/ogr and f neis cven tlarmares -n.n ·ould be ,ne ' · · ¡·

Educa1ion. ',,..y • · differcnl d1sc1p mes. or lo••crs. bol theY thare '"e. and theorisls, and -n..y use ditlerent con ." ach othcr's work. ,.,. ad or c11e e . . ha·- no ~ason 10 re cate rh1s 1s nol " · •sosepa · BccaUSC tbeir ~0~1cs are ulf is""' due to cmpiri-surpri•mg. Ho"c'.er., l~O: identily grounded in

cal ropic. but ·~ d1sc1pl Lu~lla will never read or thcoreticMI d11lerenccs', of cducation ei rher cite the anthropology 1980. 1990; Delamont (Alkinson and Delamont, and Atkinson. 1995 ). . • fi her wc can

To illustrate thc d1flerences urt • d . ' - ther ir of eihnographers stu ying

contraS~ lrna:ne rhat Rache! Verinder slarts ~hD aiongside a fellow studenl, franklin Blakc who is passionarely comm111ed ro urban an~logy. When Rache! sets .ºff for her

Gal. . . .11 • .,.. Franklin packs h1s bags and ician \1 -..-· .

heads for Munich. using onc of four s1ra1eg1es to find 1 manageable projecr. He could choose a oeighbourhood. live in ir. and rrear 11 as an urban villagc. lile Press (1979) in Seville. He could choosc one sel of people, such as m1gran1s from a particular place. and make rhem his focus as Grillo ( 1985) did in Lyon, and Kenny (1960) d1d in Madrid He could choose an instilution or organization. such as a hospital or a facrory '. and treat it as a microcosm of the c11y. Th1s 1s frequcorly done by urban anlhropologisls m America. such as the conlriburors to lhe collcctions edited by Messerschmidl ( 1982) and Burawoy and bis colleagues (1991). Alter­natively. Franklin could choose one caregory of peoplc. sucb as members of a rrade un ion, or tour guides, or pricsts, or practirioners of acupunc­ture. or antique dealers, and focos on lhem 1 c.g. Sbechao, 1993, on Dublin inrellecluals ). McKcvia's(l99la, 1991bJ work in San Giovanni Rocondo focused on devorees of Padre Pio, and McDooogh 11986) focused on elite families in Barcelona. v ·Munich has migrants from Greece, ltaly,

•ctnam, Turkey, ali the narions of the fonner

Yugoslavia. and Germans who hav from rur.il areas or other cities . e lllovcd Fr-.inklin ~ould rh.ereforc. choose au "

1 Ge,

1"

jecls for h1s PhD m Munich, before se~llli of Pr~ to use thc same range of meth<>ds th11g do

R h 1 . • ora . ~" of rhem. as ac e uses m her fishill , . !ielecli0i¡ could evcn focus on Bavarian sepa g Village. fj allel her G.alician regionalists. T~~llsts lo Par~ conrcxts w11l be more varied in fteldv,Or\ depending on the projecr. McDono, ª b1g ciiy, describes domg fieldwork ar the 0~.0986: xi¡

familics iovitcd me inlo aoothcr c~pcricncc <>

housc in !he anstocrut1c logcs of thc first ba ru.. "P<i¡ firsl performance l saw from this lcon). Thc: Montserrat Caballc singing L 'Africai

11""tagc "'ª'

thcalrc. Thc magniliccncc of thaJ pe;;' •n her honi. lightcd thc dunlirics of my role as pan;c· ºl'lllancc ltigti.

• 1P8ntnbsc,.,. half attcnuvc to thc stagc and half an cr . dramas nround me. cnlivc to lile

Compare lhat ficldwork s~lting with Bel . ( 1989: 275) Naplcs, m a d1stric1 he call ~onre s del Re, not at all 1 ike thc opera ~º~Diana Barcelona: se 10

thc district was no1orious in Naplcs as a dan zonc. a den of thicvcs, roughnccks and prosr gcroos disproportionatc numbcr of thc i nhabitants e nutcs .. · a living collccting cardboard and junk. •mcd lhcir

Lel us assume that Franklin seules on stud · th . k Ytng e tens1ons among gueslwor ers from the fo

l . dh . rrner Yugos av1a, an ow pre111ously shared idenri-fiers such as Serbo-Croat are unravelling since 1989, a study to parallel Danforth's (1995 2000¡ on Greeks and Macedonians in Melboum~.

We can contrast Franklin with a sociologis~ Garrett Monmouth, doing an ethnography in Boarbridge itself. He could have decided lo focus on one neighbourhood, or one ser of people, or one institution or organization. As Boarbridge is a historie city, Garren might study the 1ouris1 industry, or museums, or heritage (Dicks, 2000). lf he were more interested in generic urban issues he could focus on perhaps the young homeless (Hall, 2003), bodybuilders using gyms (Monaghan, 1999) or bouncers on rhe doors of clubs and pubs. Howevcr, Jet us imagine he has decided 10 focus on refugees from rhe wars in Yugoslavia, and also discovers rhe disinregration of rhe old 'Yugoslavian ' identity and the Serbo­Croat language.

The contras! between Franklin's anrhropology and Garrett's sociology is jusi as srark as between Rachel and Lucilla. Franklin is away abroad working in two orher languagcs, Gennan ' s b' and and Serbo-Croat ( or rather er 1an . Croarian). He will not sce his supervisor for nine

· 1 or c-ma1ls. As months, merely exchangmg etters

ETHNOGRAPHY ANO PA . RTICIPANT OBSERVATtON

f Southersham sa1d 10 us: ' I don'r feel not 211 .ue o k ' • proc d

t11" feª!,. should be ~ mgbeone skwnose into a 1 ec in a strai •ht r l º''.': fieldwork : . . it can aw ard, embar- OOps, bccaUse cach s~e l tne, but in a series of

~01 • d annoymg for a .research student' rc~ect upon, and evcn P eads the .researcher to ~>-.;iO!l anDr [)nlmmock of Kingford said, 'The example, if an observat'revisir, carhcr steps. for •: _111arlY •Ot 10 be independent enough to fonn tncluded onc posrd ion ID ª biochcmistry lab , 1.. tias ¡; S d 1 rcsearcher that !he OC!oral fellow lclling the :COJeºl ·uJgernent'. tu ents to d us, 'You·rc senior ~ :"'·ir º"".'edJ 10 visit the department when you're in an affair with anorh pro essor was having "~1 aJIO" secause you ·re supposed to be in the allocared her the 'bes~~ pos1doc1oral fellow and ~· (Jeld lah Wyston, Southersham). Franklin up research issues· 'H pr?Jecrs, thar would open

f~·IJ' ( 9eu1 a great deal of data and focus on his cated?', . How do~s º". d~ proJects gel allo-" llCC 'What literature is th gossip ID the lab work?',

, ill 'º·. 1 ¡heme once _'home' in Boarbridge. and so on. Such ere on womcn in science?', t/l'''rc11•ª11 see his supervisor regularly throughout but a researcher quesuons m1gh1 be dead cnds, ¡;~11 ;ork. and will be told repeatedly by his fieldnotes and inr:~~ld need to re-read ali the ti!<' 11el r 10 focUS on one aspect oflhe rcfugees in ture search, lan

1 te.w lranscnpts, .do a li1era-

;.i1plC' 1.~,e and not drift off .target. Because they fieldwork a~d ºh ratse aU thrce 1op1cs in futurc

IJ<~n.; done PhDs on Serb1ans and/or Croalians 10 raise those . per aps rev1511 any past fieldsitcs t.I'" ·bO the twO rnen mighl altend the same semi- Kevles's (l 99~s)s~es. That example comes from 1n e~ile. nferences, and even compare findings, Balt' istoncal reconstrucrion of the f'llS_or ~~in is likely to go to the same meetings as accu•:~: case. lf .he had lcamed of such an b<JI f~.ifl and Garrelt to the same ones as Lucilla. have follow:~• 1.~ domg an ethnography he could Ra.:h.I. rher clear difference between Rachel and 1 up m other labs, other research . º:~i~ as anthropolo~ists and Lucilla and f~ups, but because ir carne up in a history he ffllO s sociolog1sts w1ll have been their pre- a ~o opportunity to pursue the lopic further as Garn:ll ªk rraining, especially their exposure to an et nographer would do. Because ethnography ¡ ·ldwor . 1 . . h UK parreoceeds. in loops, the foreshadowed problems 1' ods rraining. Socio og1sts m t e have rev1S1ted, th roelh uch more enthusiastic about compulsory ¡¡ e access negotialions revea! key ¡,ecn. rn

1·n research methods, including qualita- d:atures of the selling used when analysing rhe

ira1oing 8 · · h h 1 . ta, the analys1s retums the scholar to the field-·,.e rechniques, rhan nlls ant ropo og1sts notes, and so on ad infinitum.

11 '" As Dr Trevithick of Southersham told us: . During fieldwork it is vital 10 sample lhe set-

~;~icipanl observation is not, 1 would say, a tmg m a systematic way. A good study focuses _ arch method wh1ch can be taught m the class- on ~1fferent lypes of participan!, includes obser-

it>~ and then applied in the field .... It 's sorne- val!o~s made at.all rimes ofthe day (and, perhaps ~ g you can only leam by doing it.' Dr Fustian the mght), and m all the possible locations. 11 is ~~~ingford concurred: ·~11 this business ~ftrain- not always possible for a researcher 10 watch the º" 1 think is largely spunous. 1t ts somethmg that opposite sex, people of very different ages, or :, 'ieaml by the experience of doing it. lt's rather push mto all the possible se11ings, but it is neces-like ieaching music. Y ou cannot teach people sary .to plan to observe systematically wherever how 10 play without a piano. lt's only by playing poss1ble. In a fishing village the researcher they can learn, and 1 rhink fieldwork is like that.' should not only observe fishing, but also net

All four fictional characters could struggle mending, the sales of the catch, boat repair, with the issues raised by the 'rhetorical tum' and women's everyday lives, the days ofmen too old by postmodemism. In the past fifteen years both to go out to sea any more, and rhe experiences of anthropology and sociology have been through children. Observations should not only encom-some lurmoil about the ways in which data are pass the sea, but also the church, the vegetable analysed and texts written, but the debates are garden, the school and the fish market. Thinking contained within each discipline. through all the possible places to observe, the

In rhe next section the general lessons that ali times to observe, the people to watch, and dis-four would have leamed from their fieldwork are covering whether or not it is possible and pro-distilled inro sorne general precepts. ductive to do so, is a central task of good

fieldwork (Spradley, 1979).

ETHNOGRAPHY FROM STARTTO FINISH

' ;,\hnography is hard work: physically, emotion­y and mentally exhausting. The research does

The beginning, the middle and the end of fieldwork can ali be problematic. Autobio­graphical accounts by anthropologists and sociologists suggest many researchers expen­ence culture shock when conducting their fieldwork· this is rare when researchcrs gather th~ir data by post while among

FIELD RELATIONS

lll . rhe mcthods lite111ture

colleagu..-s. Much . ol he initial culture shock aJso rocuses on usrng .t 1 1 fruirful time for

. parucu ar Y b 1Gcer. 19'M) as 8 . Once accepted Y · • 1 data coll~tion. ha to ins1ghtlu . ·te rcscarchers ve

,ctors at a fieldwork •• : '· abandoning the ... •omg nanve. . ¡¡uard aga1nsl g . d adopting tbc v1ews L~ ........ pecnve an

rcsarc•"'r r·.- n. ng Sorne researchers of the actors in th.e sct~e Í.eld cven when no

~~~~~I t~~~;;~ or data. are bcingbcgained . ·L~ ficlds1le havc come

bccause ac1ors in u"' friends and the fieldwork comfortable.. b th

.. ' ork in an unfamiliar cul1ure is o ~~ easier than fieldwork in one's own íamT socieiy. In an unfamiliar ~ulturc every­thi~ '% strange, and so it is unhkely that the rcscarcber will forgel to convey thal stran.geness. In conuasl, researchers studying the1r own socieiy often fail lo report, or 10 make anthropo­logically strange, many a.-peclS of 1he se.tung. So the French researcher who goes to hve ·~ a Brazilian fal't'la will have a more fnghtenmg, bewildcring and confusing cxpenem:c, ~ut the data will be unfamiliar 10 her readcrs m fomcc, and even exotic. The same researcher studymg everyday life in Fnmce is likely 10 feel safe, clear-minded and cohercnt, but 10 have 10 work very har<l 10 produce an "in1eres1ing' account of thc fieldsile, unless. of course, she becomcs embroilcd in witchcraft (Favrc1-Saada, 1980).

One ofthe biggest problcms is that infonnants oftcn want to hdp researchers. by showing and telling what they lhink investigators wanl to sec and bear. Equally, infonnanlS may systemati­cally hide tbings. and lell lics, lo pro1ect them­selves. their sccrelS or their privacy. Researchers who prefer fieldwork to the quicker method of interviewing hope 10 get beyond the infonnants' impression management, even though sometimes tbey discover 1ha1 their informanls ini1ially believcd them to be spies, tax collectors or loose women (Kenna, 1992).

Foreshodowed problem(s)

Central to good ethnography is an intellectually thoughrful set of foreshadowed problems: ideas thal will gu1dc the access nego1ia1ions, 1he initial fieldwork. the early writing of 1he ou1-of-the­field dwy. These come from reading, from colleagues and mentors, from lhe core of 1he dis­c1phoc. The elhnography is only as good as the :;:'~ the rcsearcher dcploys. At lhe time of wril­~ am planmng an ethnogrdphy of opera prob~:;~n ~:tral Europe. T~c forcshadowed who pay forcholida~yº; !:rr'pdle, ideas th.al people

use on opera m Praguc

and Budapest will also anead will prefer "traditional' prod ~pe¡q in lh · · uction e lH<

sic core reperto1re works a d Valuci. '" tivcly low seat priecs. Tha; is nth ªPPrecia~ c1Q,\. example, Opera North produ~tio ey also &o i:cla. fer the Hebrew slaves in Nahu ~~ •n leeds 'f0r illustrations from a Ladybird ~o to l0ok ~.re. ralher than Jews in Daehau, wa k Of lhe s·'kt rdther than Der Ferne Klung nt .'º sec 1i •ble believe that 1he two London

0 or Die l'uge/

0lt"Q

Opera House (ROH) and Englh~ª houses, Roªlld (ENO), cost too much money Na11ona1 ~al London. All these ideas gleaned' asfi do hotels ra

1 h . d ' rom ¡¡ in p e, t c correspon ence pages f h • or e11a . dhb Oteo llJ. azmcs an t e rochures of the ~ra rna •.

companies, could be blown out ;i>ecialist to g the first period of fieldwork Toh lhe Water :

1 d.d . . . at w y

sp en 1 : 11 1s marvellous when th fi ould be problems tum oul to have been we oreshadowCd

This is one difTerence betwee rong. d . d .. d n leam an an m 1v1 ual projcct. In a 1 research

d. eam cfli .

nccessary to 1scuss the foreshad on 11 is oweJ p b and share them. The main diffcrcn _ ro lems. lcam ethnographies 1hat ended ce betwecn

. h up w1th a . . pro1ec1, suc as Strauss et al. (1964) Join1 that produce an unintegraled colle .' and lhose vidual accounts (e.g. Stake and E~:~on of mdi­the pooling of the hypotheses before ~· 1_978¡ is after the fieldwork. The ORACLE p ' . unng and

roJect on · mary to secondary transfer (Del· Pn-G. 1 19º6) · 1 . arnont and a Ion, n mvo ved coordmatin , the work of seven observers most of the g ficld­' m untra1n d In Galton and Delamont ( 1985) we discuss d e.· as follows: e th1s

Thc limctablc of lhe cthnographic rcscarch allowcd us to use thc s1udy oflhc 9- 13 schools. in Scpicmbcr 1977 ~s a p1lot study for 1978, whcn the pupils lransfcrml mto thc 12- .1 l! and 11 - 14 schools. Thus by 197X wc had a fistful of ideas from lhe 1977 study which wc could use as · forcshadowcd problcms' or ·scnsilizing con­ecpts' in 1978. Sara Dclamont and Mauricc Gallon wcrc involved in bolh ycars, and othcrs only workcd in onc ycar. but sorne of thc 1977 lcssons wcrc earricd forward 10 l 97H.

This was an unusual feature of a school ethno-1:.rraphy. We had a chance to think for a vear between the Ashburton phase of the rcsearch and the Bridgehamplon and Coalthorpe phase. Our account continues:

Wc ncvcr bclicvcd that cthnographcrs cnlcr 1hc ficld opcn-mindcd. In 1hc 1977 study ofthe 1wo 9-13 schools we had a short list of • foreshadowcd problems' dcrivcd from our rcading ofo1hcr school s1udics. Thcsc wcrc of lwo kinds: sorne vaguely ' lhcorc1ical' ideas wc had dcrived from thc litcra1urc, and sorne 'common scnsc' ideas derived more from our membcrs' knowlcdgc. Among lhc more 'lhcorclical' ideas wc wcrc in1crcstcd

ETHNOGRAPHY AND PARTICIPANT

_ _ aasil Bcrns1cin's (1.971. 1974) ideas 00

OBse~.-.Tlo1o4 ~iil•t•Oll nd fnlmtni: and v1s1blc and invisible pcd. bettcred (se 111

,~ · uon • · 1· I· bclr • th · e also A '· · .;iñCA bCllinnini:s o a mg, and the notion of e lmpona h,tnson Cl 1 '"' · ahC • M ·oncrc1 1 and A nce of fioh¡· a ·• 2003¡ G· ,,~,,.,. uaicgics. ore e .e y. wc askcd all tkinson 1995" ing familiarit . ivcn ~ ..,,og s iook cardully at pup1ls' 'adjustmcnt' to encounter · 'h ; Delamont 2~,.Y (DclilJTlont ·"' ~ JO • . ~ IS t e be t · • uv2) lh · · -1»'"' hools. sibhng compansons, statTroom dis- un1arniliar and s time lo sec th • e 1n11i111 :i,:,r ne~ ~pupils, bullying and lhe schoo1s· responses vantage point ~o fon:e onese1r 10 5 e &cnuincly .. «ioO' o .0rnparc •1Ju.-ory' and "prac1icc· in SUch made strang rom V.·h1ch the f~~ca,~ch for lhc ,,.,. od 10 e .1 . e. - .. 11ar can L .

,iL ' ·culum balance. pup1 groupmgs, alloca1ion "" ~ · cUrfl F ¡¡>::P a> • • JO c1asscs and so on. or example, in Local _,1 1•°"~A wc had found lhat allocation of childrcn to \UaJi.l"I) GuY Manncring School was more eloscly ~ 11~ ahC prirnary school anended than ability or i<lj••" rtS and so we asked lhe obscrvcrs in Local

• n:pO • . i..:..i> riocs B and C lo exammc band alloca1ion. elass wthO . and 50 forth. ~I<"ªºº"

. . 8

fairly typical list of foreshadowed .,.., • JS • 1 11•1' sorne are theorettca ata high leve! of

r"ible~~~lion (visible pedagogy), sorne are ~1oera range concepts ( copmg strategy ), so me 1111Jdle- rete issues (how are new children alio­li' "º~cclasses?). The big problem with ali tearn ,-¡¡1ed h is that each observer is bound to have

·ea re h re> .0

agenda, and t ey may not ali be equa\ly 11i:r ~"\ for the researcher herself, or in the field­'~p ic• r 1· 0 the out-of-the-field diary and analytic 001es o

S As we commented on the ORACLE pro­

rnemo . . . ·How far the observers took any notice of :~ "foreshadowed" problems is, in retrospect, uoclear - because of the diverse nature of the

observers.'

Access ond initial encounters

Having done the reading and thinking to develop foreshadowed problems, the good ethnographer negoliates access to one or more fieldsites, making careful notes of ali the interactions. Access can be by leners and fonnal interviews if the fieldsite is a fonnal organization or a prívate space such as a farnily. lf the fieldsite is a public place, then access may be a process of hanging out and infor­mal chats. There are many autobiographical accounts of access negotiations ( see Delamont, 2002: ch. ~) by sociologists and anthropologists, and the 1op1c is covered in ali the textbooks. There are lhree golden rules. First, every aspect of the processes. needs to be meticulously recorded, because vital features of the setting are made vis-1bl d . e unng the access stages. Second, failed access attempts are 'data', just as successful ones ~:· Th1rd, lhe harder it is to gain access, the more 1 ely. the work will be rewarding once 'inside' and vice ve . ti . lead ~ª· very o ten decept1vely easy access

5 to barner-strewn fieldwork. encGecr (1964) wrote the classic paper on initial

ounters a d · · . • n lts ms1ghts have not been

Data co//ection

The biggest problem nov· for ethnographic fieldw~~~s find when prcparing books are no1 ex. 1· . is tílat the melhods ob P icu enough bo

~erve, how to observe a d a u1 what lo lt is very hard to d nbewhat to Wrile down. ob escn m w ds h serve. Wolcott (1981) h or ow to lent atternpt comparin as.produccd an excel-anthropological researc~ ~1s mcthods in his hall) and his educa1ional m . an Afncan bccr Essentially an ethnograph pro~ects m the USA. she can, writes lhe rnost er o . serves everything can takes time t detailcd fieldnotes she uro'n them 15· ~ expand, elaborate and reflcc1 time permi~u ~o~s:~tlfield and/or as soon as observed to ~xplain w~t ~~tyer~ th~se being why and swee re omg and eph~mera avaif:b~: ~ docu~ents, pictures or Geertz's . . a~m is to produce, in

. . (1973) class1c forrnula1ion a lhick ~escnptlo~, of the sening and the actor~ in it suf­tc1~ntly nch to enable a reader to live i; that

settmg w1~hou.t unwittingly viola1ing its basic tenets. So if it is absolutely forbidden for women to . set f~ot on fishing boats, or for Turkish ch1ldren m Munich (Yalcun-Heckmann, 1994) lo have fireworks on New Year's Eve, that should be crystal-clear from the evenlual publications which will have been drawn from lhe observa: tions and interrogations.

Recording

The most important thing researchers have to do is record what they see, usually in fieldnotes but sometimes on tape or film, because anything not recorded is lost. Once recorded, data are safe, although the real work of the research comes with analysing data, interpreting them, and wril­ing them up into accounts for a wider readership. Fieldwork that is never wrinen up is wasted. Reading the autobiographical accounts of both sociologists and anthropologists, it is clear that many ethnographers keep fieldnotes and other kinds of more reflexive records such asan 'out­of-the-field diary' in which theoretical ideas can be rehearsed. In the past decade, scholars have been more prepared to discuss and reflect on how

•

, n RELATIONS FIE....,.

21• . ¡Sanjek. 1990; be. w'fltten .

0 int in

fieldnOlti are. ~r200I_). There isu~:Orded, Emerson et aL. and le~vmg thelTI nited. 1 f ()bser. ing_ th•: s.:ribbled notes unepolai~ in leaV­or in leavm!l -~..,i the.-C is no taken

. . aJC recoí<I""' rraphs are • intcl"o'ICW• . ·bc:d lf photog d 1 1¡c1led

the unuanscn . ted an a ing m t be developed. _pnn 1 me) Filrn or theY mus er 25. th1s vo u . made tcf. Pink. Chapt have a commcntary vidcO. 1ikew1se. rnust fresh (cf. Pink, ib1d.). In while rhe images are rk the researcher . may

~rnnnlo"ical tieldwo .' roof boxes; in ali anr.u..,,,- "' · rnute-p d need to_ store data ·~ t~o create duplicates an kinds. it is sens1bl ctically poss1ble. The baCk-ups as soon _as P~11 the mosl vital form importance of wnung. • 1 red in Delamonl of record-keepmg. is exp o ¡2002: Chs 4, 8 and 12).

h is the constan! and tiring Cenual to e1hnog!11P Y fl . ·iy is thc most

ess of reflecling. Re ex1v1 d of proc t characteristic of lieldwork, an ~~ITs Hammersley and Atkinson 0_99~) expl~re die concept thoroughly. Reflex1v1ty ti is the wa ihat qualitative researchers stnve or reliabiifl}' and validily. and the developmenl an_d

. . fon-'s reflexive skills and empath1es IS trammg o ·- 1 Th the keystone of whal Coffey ( 1999) cal s . e EJJinographic Sel/ Constan! exercise of reflex1v­ity should inform ali the stages from the fore­shadowed problems through the data collecuon 1o the evenrual wriling up (Elhs and Bochner, 1996). One vital stage of the fieldwork, where reflexivil}' needs to be exercised, is the exit from the fieldsite, which is too often neglected.

Many methods books spend thousands _of words oo access and initial encounters, wh1le ignoring leaving. Y et the disengagement from the field is jusi as importan! as the entry and engage­menL Fine ( J 983 ), Altheide ( 1980), Maines et al. (1980). Wulff (2000} and Delamont (2002) ali address leaving. A good basic principie is that once the fieldsite feels like home it is time to leave: fieldwork should be uncomfortable. Once it is feeling familiar, it is time ro move on.

Thc analytic strategies available to ethnogra­phers have not changed in principie for a century IStrauss, 1987). However, lhe development of software packages lhat handle text has changed the pracllces of anal~sis and made ir much more a matter of pubhc d1scussion. Useful ways into

the literature on software packau d . W . oes and

are reporte m e1tzman and . Ptacr fielding (2001) and Fielding a ~•les {l~ctt cotfey and Atkinson ( 1996, 2~ 1 Le~ (20o~J. episternology of the new technolo} . ª<Id~ ui!: and Taylor (2003) are entirely dcvoi:~es. a, with severa! chapters on the anal . to ªOitlv.: . A y~~ ·~ uve data. greater self-consci qUalit¡..

analysis is incxtricably linked 10 ~Usncss a~ writing cthnography. e debates 0~

Writing

Thc ways in which ethnographic data have been controversia! for the Past fiftarc Written and the issu_cs are complicated by th

1e ~en Years,

postmodenusrn. One of thc ma1·0 r · 0&uc f0r · •ssues ated w1th poslrnodem standpoinrs e élSSOcj. so-called 'crisis ofrepresentation' th oncerns lhe . atwas cially promment among social d espe. anthropol.ogists in the l 980s, an~n cu1tura1 other social sc1ences too in the subsc pennealcd

. d . . quenr ye Th1s suppose cns1s threatencd the tak ars. granted found_ations of social inquiry. T~n-for. of representatlon was centred on the a ro cnsis modes of cultural representation or repp Pnate . 1 d . .d construc 11on. t was, an 1s, w1 ely recognizcd that , -

ethnography' has for many decades referre the both the conduct of fieldwork in all its d 10

and the written product of that research aspehc1s, h

HC ~ the rnonograp . The scholar is thus rccogn·zab engaged in a double process of engagemen~ -~ the field. First, she or he is enuaged 1·n . wi

. . o apro-~cte~ senes of transact1ons and exploraiions w1th mfonnants. In and _of themselves, these engagements are far from mnocent. The cultu and social realities reported in the course offie~~~ work are dependent on the active explora1ions and the joint negotiati?ns, tha1 the investigato; undertakes m con1uncllon w1th her or his hos1s and infonnants. Secondly, there are further acls of interpretation when the scholar acts as aulhor. The discoveries of disciplines like sociology and anthropolo¡,,'Y are not the revelations of an inde­pendent social reality, but are jic1io11s - in lhe sense that they are created and crafted products.

This general perspective was articulated and widely publicized in Wriling Cu/Jure (Clifford and Marcus, 1986). A number of authors explored the textual conventions of cultural anthropolo¡,,'Y, and through their textual explo­rations raised more profound questions concem­ing the ethnographic project. Their reflections included the recognition that cthnographic repre­sentation is grounded in conventional modes of representation. These include texlual devices and

ETHNOGRAPHY ANO p . ARTICIPANT OBSEllVATION

soeiated wllh . genres of fiction, as e 215

i<,.J(ls as les of non-ficuon _tex.t, such a.~ travel ONCLUSION n 11 ¡¡S s1Y

1.,..,

0rd 1988; Atkmson, 1990 199l)

~' ' (C u•• • fi • . 1i11i; rns were not con med to thc purely

11 ~ · cooce f th o •ra h. •1r s cts o e n g P 1c monographs, ~[IJ~I ª ~ey also focuscd ~n the direct rela-1· ,1,ver. '-"tween the uu1hur1ty of the ethno-ll-1 . "" h h' f

11sl11P 1

and the aul urs 1p o that selfsame n•' · 1ex . ,ppl1•' nventional ethnograph1c monograph ;.~t- f~C '~ed. was a depersonalize~ d~ument: 11 11"5. ª11~he ethnographer was an mv1stble but

0 11111' d ·rnplied narrator. The social world is ~11,·M!l~ 1

d reported from the single, dominan! .0,-.cye . ªºor the ethnographic author, who is , cuve . lf 1 h ,.¿!Spe rn the tex.t 1tse . n ot er words, the 1- d frO h' · (i1dC. fthe ethnograp 1c enterpnse - an espe-;isbihl}' ~ ring characteristic of anthropology for ¡1311Y ~ec~des - was held up to question. T~e f113PY . of the ethno¡,,>raphy - as opposed to 1ts auihOnl}'

1 interpretation al the meta-level of

;obsequenve ethnology and anthropological Parall . co!ll had rernained relat1vely stable. The cri-' illtº1 ~presentation in many ways seemed to

;1s 0 more profound challenge than the com­offer ª d goings of fashionable theories and 1ogs an 11 seemed to strike al the very legitimacy debatCS~nventional ethnographic mode of repre­of the_con not only in anthropology (Wolcott, ;entall • 990· Wolf, J 992). 1 Tl;e textual ~m in qualitative research has_had

. oductive s1de. 11 has led to a self-consc1ous 11S pr auempt on the ~art of sorne authors to dei;>loy and d elop a vanety of textual convent1ons, to e~sgress the taken-for-granted boundaries ~rween genres, and thus _10 match literary styles

10 analytic interests. R1chardson ( 1994), for instance, makes a case for writing as a mode of analysis in its own right. There are, metaphori­cally speaking, two kinds of response to the ·crisis of representation' and its associated ideas. The pessimistic view might lead one to regard 1he ethnographic enterprise as ali but impossible. One might lapse into silence. The crisis could easily result in an intellectualized fonn of writer's block. The more optimistic response would be to recognize literary and rhetorical conventions for what they are, and resolve to use and explore them creatively. In practice many conlemporary scholars have taken the optimistic palh. Jf one starts from the recognition that there is no such thing as a perfectly innocent or trans­parent mode of representation, then it is possible lo explore the possibilities of written tex.t - and 01her representations - in a creative way. One can use them to construct particular kinds of analysis, and to evoke particular kinds of response in one's audience.

Thc ch aptcr started . . . stressed that lhe come in . ro1hng smoke, and end in that sa st is never ovcr. lt mua1

. me smokc Th fi 1 . ~nurely ours. Ethno : e 1c d 1s nevcr mg and f;asc · . graphic research is cxhaust­

matmg and ·t · be allowed into oth 1 15 a great privilege to D . . cr people's . 1 rlds espite ex.aggerated 1 . socia wo . are outmoded, and e aims that classic methods there is plenty of clas:,ic textual forms extinct, be done The scsope . or proper ethnography to

. re are pan1sh Id' ers and e . . so 1crs, huntcr gather-smoke for a~~nt de_rectives s1ill waiting in the their worlds .º hve among lhem and cap1ure

usmg ethnographic methods.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Rosemary Janes word processed this paper for me, for wh1ch 1 am grateful.

REFERENCES

Altheide, D. (1980) 'Lcaving the newsroom', in W.B. Shaffir, R.A. Slcbbins and A. Turowctz (cds),

Fieldwork Experience. New York: St Manin's Press, pp. 301 - 10.

Atkinson, P.A. (1990) The Elhnographic Jmagjnation. London: Routledgc.

Atkinson, P.A. (1992) Unders1unding Ethnographic Texls. London: Sage.

Atkinson, P.A. (1997) 'Narratívc rum or blind allcy'!', Quali1ative Hea//h Research, 7(3): 325-44.

Atkinson, P.A. and Dclamont, S. ( 1980) 'Thc two tradi­tions of educational antbropology: sociology and an1hropology compared', British Journa/ of Sociology of Educalion, 1(2): 139-52.

Atkinson, P.A. and Delamont, S. (1990¡ 'Writing aboul leacber.; ' , Teaching and Teacher Educalion, 6(2): 111-25.

Atkinson, P.A. and Silvcnnao, D. ( 1997) 'Kundcra's lmmortality: lhe inlcrview sociely and tbc inv~ntion of tbc self', Qua/itative Jnquiry, 3(3): 304-25.

Atkinson, P.A., Delamont, S., Coffcy, A .• Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. (eds) (2001) The Handbook of Ethnagraphy. London: Sagc.

Atkinson, P.A., Coffcy, A.J. and Dclamont, S. (2003) Key Themes in Qualitalive Research. Walnut Crcck, CA:

AltaMira Press. Behar, R. and Gordon, D. (cds) (1995) Women Writing

Culture. Berkeley: Univer.;ity of Cali fomia Press. Bclmonlc, T. ( 1989) The Broken Fuunlain (2nd cd.).

Ncw York: Columbia Univcrsity Press (originally

publishcd 1983). Bryman, A. and Taylor M. {cds) (2003) Handbaok of

Ana(vsis. London: Sagc.

PllLD "ILATIONS

Jl6 l~MI) "ª""'"· oJ 11.,...:hkr. J.M. l

·•le• 11 • °"':" . . MA s.:11cnL1111• 1 ~m MW"J"ll '" l """""1'· 11.,. ... •lcr. J M t•-.lsl t

1,......•1ct. 11 •"" ' nv..i<!d p,..,. J ~" r.wt. !ir« upln U•huun<

t)ltt'f" "' ) t I ~~ 1) /it•••Jll' llllf•"º>- M I< ( 'ahliM111• p,..,;.s

11<rt.d.:) Unl\<r"I) o l ti ·tn< .\lfal ~·1tlt tltr 1<1<1Jl I• '"' « tlllf~C. J l I LonJon Pho1:n1'VOnott

C~""' /.INJ Tll pn.J1cu"''"' 4 C•1'""'

c1offurJ. J. 11 ~MMI ' umvcrs11y rress. cambndll"· MA. llal\anl : •d>) ( l 9Mó) ll'riti•ll

nd Ma<'US. G l.· (< · . nffolli J. • . u "crsil)' of l'ali 1om1a rrcss.

CiJllU1' IJcr\ck:). n1 • . . º1•/f. London: Sagc. "' t'tltnogNP•'' " · .

l 'olk) .... (I~) '"' ds) (19'14) 0t·cu¡1t11ton11I Cotky. A anJ Atkinscn . . r Al. (e .· Ald<r"'1ot: Avcbury.

' . · .,,,,¡ lfor/;tn~ ·""' · .r Sc•·'"/""11'"' ¡, A ( l 9'1M Mubng St·mr u, ITt A and /ltk10S0n. · ·

Co y. . . TltoUsand Oaks. CA: Sagc. (lwll1"'""' °"'ª: r 200 ll · 1 kcatc 's domain" tn

l . ffc .. and Atk1nson. l I e . o y. · · . ( :d.•J Cn•u-Culruru au C.J. Pule and R.G. Uur~,.., ~ ·

. )xford· Elsc•·icr. PP· • 1 42· . . • 'il»th · l NÍ M 8.,,¡,. Po/illl' 1n Nurthem e ... J (19YO)O<illl:t • ' . . 0~ ' · Pn' IO NJ Princcton Univcrs11y Pr=.

Gm'N'· "'"' n. . . . Dlafo<ÚI. L. (19'1~) Tltr Mai...,/onian Conf11ct. Pnnccton.

NJ rnnccion Un1vcrsil)' Prcss. . . , Dlaf.;.u._ L. (20001 ·flov. can a ~oman g1vc b1~ to.º""

Gl\lCk and onc Maccdonian'!. in J.K. Cov.an (ed.),

Muad1>11Ui. London: PlulO. pp. K5 . 103. MJ \19K8) June ·•""""'' anJ tht Mm o/ th<'

~Sc·MMJ/. Ncw Bnmswick, NJ; !ransaction Prcss. DecpA. MJ (:?OO I) 'Thc Cbica¡,'ll Scltool , tn P.A. Atkmson

el al. (cds). Tite HunJl>tNJA uf f,'1/tnagrophy. London:

s.. pp. 11 -15. . . Dcllmool S. ( 1995) .~~tita 11NÍ /Jrnt111rs. London:

Roudcdg< Dclamon~ s. (1997) 'fuuy bordcrs and tbc lifih

momcnl'. Britis~ )a<trnal uf Socio/og>' uf Educatiun,

lll\4): 60H>. Dclomoa~ S. (2002) Firldv.wt i# EdlKOtiunal Sellings

(2ad cd.). l.oodoo: Falmcr. Dclamoo~ S. and Atkinson. P.A. ( 1995) Fighting

FOlllilJ<Jrity. C'n:sskill, NJ: Hampton. Drilmanl S. and Galton. M. ( 1986) ltuidt tht Secondary

C"1ssrootr1. Londoo: Rootledgc. 0.llllltotil S., Alkinson. P.A. and P&rl)', 0 . (2000a) Tht

Ducloral t'xptritnct. l.oodon: Fallill.'I'. Ddlmool S .. CotTcy. A. and Alkinson, P.A. (2000b) 'Thc

r.tlipl ycars?', Qllalitatiw Sllldits in Educa/ion, 13(3 ): 22>-38.

Dicks, B. 12000¡ Huitagt, Pluct and Community. Clnlitf: Uoivrrsil)' or Walcs Prcss.

Elba. C. and Bocbncr, A.P. lcds) (1996) Composing ~· Walaut Crcek. CA: AltaMira Prcss.

f.Rlul. R.M.. ftUZ. R.l. mi Shaw, LL ( 19'15) Writing ~Ftrilnolo.~: 0U.:. Univcrsil)' ~ ~ R.M .. Fmz. R.l. and Sbaw, L.L. (2001).

l'lniciput obecrvaboo and ticldnoteS', in P. Atkinson et ll. (cdsJ, HIJN/hool; of Ethnograplry. London· Sagc pp. H2-611. . '

F~~ (200IJ 'Cuncrus of cultural licldwork', in ~ Sanson et al. (cds), H""'1bouk of Erhnography.

· ge. pp. 39- 59.

h\ n:1-Sa1Ja. J. 11 'IKO) V.-a,Jly n¡,"4 . l'ambnJ¡¡c Uniwrsity l'n:"'1. l:•n1b11~

Ficld1n¡¡. N. (200 11 'l'umputcr apphcato . I< • . 1 . . ons 111 u

rescan:h • 111 1 . i\tkinson et ul. (cJs), 11

,uahi.,~,. t:1hnogru11h.'" LunJun: Sa¡¡c, pp 453 r.7 """"°'"- o/

Hddm¡¡. N. anJ Lu:, R. (2002) 'Ncw JlUllclllli'. and ~ ,,f4whtatiw ~llwan:', ¡.¡"'"k""3, 1~ lhc ~

Fine, G.i\. ( l'IK3J Shull'll fimt<L•I'. Ch . 2l· 197 21b

Uruvcrs11y l'n:ss. · •c&¡¡u· l'h1c¡~1 <Jaltun, M. and lklamonl, S. ( l 'IK~) ' SJICaJ..

ton¡¡uc'I Two stylcs of obscrvution '10 lhc ·~~" i~ f'."i'Cd jcct', in R. Bur1,1css (cd.), Fit'/d !Yfi.thod. · Al LI: Pfu.

• 1 m th, &..,¡ t:duc11ti1111. LonJon: l·almcr llouks, pp. 163 . Y•~

Occr, B. ( 191>4) ' First days in lhc licld', in p E 'I(), (cd.). ,'\<H'i11lr>gi.<t.< ut llilrk. Ncw York· '¡j· Hamlltortc! pp. 3 72- 9K. · asoc Books,

Gi:crtz. C. ( 1'173) Th1• lntl!rpf'f'tutim111/Cultull',,. Ncw llasic llooks. York

Glccsun. D. and Mardlc, G. ( 1 'IKO¡ Furthl!r lidu,·ur/ Tr11ining. London: Rouilcdgc & Kcgan Paul. º" "'

Goddard. V.A. ( 1996) Gt•nder. Fami/y unJ IJbrk . Noples. Oxford: Berg. ••

Grillo. R. (.l 9K5). /Jeu/ogfr., .wul lmriruri<Jru· in Ur/"' Fr11nc1'. Cambndgc: Cambndge Univcrsiry l'rcss •

Hall, T. (2003.) Bt:lll!r 1inw" Than ThiJ: ·líiuth Jlumeh•s."'""'"' rn Brrtam. London: Pluto Pn:ss.

Hammcrslcy, M. and Atkinson, P. ( 1995) Erhnugruph, .. Principies and Pructice (2nJ cd. ). London: Routlcd ', ·

Hcmandez, G. (1995) ' Multiplc subjectivitics and 51 ~' · gic pusitionality', in R. Bchar and D.A. Gordon (:~·; Women Writing Culrure. Berkeley: Univcrsity of Califomia Prcss. pp. l 4K-65.

Hirsch, E. and Gcllner, D.N. (2001) lntroduction, in D. Gcllncr and E. Hirsch (cds), ln.•iúe Organizutions. Oxford: Bcrg, pp. 1- 15.

Jackson, A. (cd.) (1987) Anthmpology at Homt . London: Tavistock.

Jus~ R. (2000) A Greek Manú Cosnw ... Oxford: James Currcy.

Kcnna. M. ( 1992) 'Changing places and altercd pcrspcc· tivcs', in J. Okcly and H. Callaway (cds), Anthrupo/ugy anú Autobiogruphy. London: Routlcdgc, pp. 147-62.

Kcnny, M. ( 1960) A Spanish Toptslry. London: Cohcn & Wcsl.

Kcvlcs, D. (1998) The Bu/timare Ca.ve: A Tria/ of Politics, Science unú Charocter. Ncw York: W.W. Nonon.

Lcach, E.R. (1984) 'Glimpscs of thc unmentionablc in thc history of British social anthropolo¡,'Y'. Annuul Re-.·ieM' of Anthropology, 13: 1-23.

Lcach, E.R. (2001) Collecteú Worb , 2 vals. Ncw flavcn: Vale University Prcss.

LcCompu:, M. (1998) 'Synonyms and scqucnccs: thc development of an intcllcctual autobiography', in K.B. de Marrais (cd.), fnsiúe Stories. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrcncc Erlbaum, pp. 197- 21 O. . Lutkchaus, N. ( 1986) ' Shc was vcry Cambridge: Camilla

Wcdb>wood and thc hislory of womcn in British social anthropolo¡,'Y', American Erhnologisl, 13(4): 776-~8'.

Macdonald, S. (2001) 'British social an1hropolo~k· ef P.A. Atkinson et al. (cds), The Hurulboc Ethnogruphy. London: Sagc, pp. 6~79.

ITHNOGRAPHY AND l"ARTJC IPANT OallftVATION

el. ( 1 l/Kl'I) 71t<' U1M.J l·'unoi/11"' oj Bmw/mru. . 1i..111''~h· NJ · l'rincclun Uni\'CrKlly l'rcu.

~I\ . n . ' l"'"'·cl"c'. (l 9'11ul 'Tu.sulli:r ami ne•·c1 tu d1c',J,,urnu/

"~<' 1ll . ·anectn Sru1/1~>. 1 ( 1 ): 5 7 t. 7. ~ .J ~I·''''' ': 119y1ll) ·sun li1nva11ni Rutondo and lhc ~i'~,.,,1L 1\~rc p1o', in J. Eudc unJ M. Sallnow (cd•J, ~n"" º. • th<' S.11'"'" · Londun : Roullcd¡:c, pp. 77. 97. ¡' • .nrr.•ll~ Shullir. W. und Turowetz, /\ . ( 19KO)

. )}. . . h h' 11,,,,..,. . thc Jicld rn el nu¡¡rop 1e rcscurch', in · ·~<~v•;~tlir. R.i\. Stcbbins und A. Turowclz (cds),

\\ IJ. k f..t¡rerience. Ncw York: SI Martm's Prcss, f1··/Jl41'f

•61 -80. . pi'· • ·hrnidt. o. (L-d .) ( l '18.2) A11t/!m¡ml1J¡¡1.\'I,, al l11Jme

1t<SSCIS" h ;1merica. Cambnd¡¡e: Cnmbnd¡¡c Univc~ily ¡~ .\ 'url

ricss· n. l... (1999) ·crcaiin¡¡ lhc "'pcrfcct body"', Buúy ~~ . ty 5(2- 3): 267- 90.

_, Soctt • h h . . .,.., iOOO> ·Jnfonnnnts w o come orne • m V. Amil flnt. S. ( Cunstructing the Fie/ú. London: Roullcd¡¡e,

,,.,¡.), 9¡,- 119.

PI'· (J995) 'Rcsearch mcthods and thc sccond PI•"· J. School', in G.A. Fine (ed.), A Secunú Chicago

ciucaso . . f Ch. S<:hool. Chicago: Un1vcrs1ty o 1eago Prcss,

K2-109. PP· I (J979) The City tts Cuntext. Urbana, IL: lllinois

l'fl:SS • . Univcrsity Prcss.

aissiguier. c . (1994) Beco~ting. Wiimen, Becoming R , .... rs Ncw York: Statc Umvers1ty ofNcw York Prcss. ~or•e ·

Rccd·Danahay, D. (1996) Eúucation a'."' Júentity in Rural france. Cambridge: Cambndge Umvcrs11y Prcss.

Richardson, L. (1994) 'Wriling: a mcthod of inquiry', in N.K. Dcnzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds), Ha'."'book of Qua/itative Rtseorch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sagc,

pp. 516-29. Riscborough. G. (1993) 'GBH - thc Gobbo Banny

Army', in l. Bates and G. Riscborough (cds), Youth a'."' lnrqua/ity. Buekingham: Open Univcrsity Prcss,

pp. 1 W-228. Roscnbcrg, H.G. ( 1988) A Negotiated World. Toronto:

Univcrsity ofToronto Prcss. Sanjck, R. (cd.) (1990) Fitlúnotes. lthaca. NY: Comcll

Univcrsity Press.

117 Shcch1n, li A. 11 ~~ ) ..

cthno¡¡11phy ur 1 . )1 fhc lluden1 rnllurc and lhc na 1 IOlcll<et 11' .

(cd.), H'h<'n 7'1wi·ll uJIJI'•. ua • •n l 11. llrencll ' r ""' 11~ JI' . London G•rvcy, pP K¡, 101 . nlt . lkl¡in A

Spnidlcy, J.I• ( 197~¡ Th< . . Ncw York : lloh R •h f.th·""ll'•Ph•c lnt•nlrw

Stak . • me art & W1n•ton e, R. and l:aslcy w

Sdent·•· f:ducuti 'u.balcds) (197K) Cu"· Studi•• In lllinois. ""· na. IL: CIRCE, Un1vcrsi1y of

Slollcr, p ( l 'IK9) Th Philadci h' . U . <. T<L"• "/ t:1hnugraphi1· Thln#$.

S P 'ª· ntvcmty of l'cnnsylvan1a Pre15 lrauss, A et al ( 19' ·') /' . ¡

/ . · · '"' ·•J•·hiurric /drnlrJKicr anú

11.\I rurwm. New York: Free 1'11.'&s. S!rauss ¡\ L ( l 9K7) Q . S . ' . · · uuluurl"< Analysis j<Jr StJclal

c·ttnrws. Cambr1'duc· Camb 'd U . . y · .. · n 11c mvcrsuy Pll.'u. alh, L. 0 9Kb) Becoming Clericu/ Workt"'. Ncw York· Roullcdge. ·

Wafcr, J'.( 1991 l The Tastr of Blooú: Spirit Pusuuion in Brimltun Cunúomh/t . l'hilndclphia: Univcrsity of Pcnnsylvania Pll.'s.~.

Walkcr'. J.C. (19llK) luurs anú leg•nds. Sydncy: Allcn &. Unwon.

WcilZman, E.A. and Miles, M.B. ( 1994) Computtr Prugrums for Qua/itariv• Datu Analyli.•. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sai:e.

Wolcon, H.F. (19lll) ' Confcssioos of a "lraincd" obscrver', in T.S. Popkcwitz and B.R. Tabachnick (cds), The Study •{ Schoo/ing. Ncw York: Pracgcr, pp. 24 7-{;3.

Wolcol~ H.F. (1990) Writing Up Quu/itative Researrh, Bcvcrlcy Hills, CA: Sagc.

Wolf, M. ( 1992) Tht Thrice Tolú Tu/e. Stanfortl: Slanford University Prcss.

Wulff, H. {2000) 'Acccss to a closcd world', in V. Ami! (cd.), Constructing the FielJ. London: Rou1lcdgc, pp. 147-{;I.

Yalcun-Hcckmann, L. ( 1994) ·Are lircworu lslamic'/', in C. S1cwart and R. Shaw (cds), Syncrerisml Anti-Syncretism. l.ondon: Roulledge, pp. 178- 95.

1