What's Wrong with Ethnography? The Myth of Theoretical Description
- 1 November 1990
- journal article
- review article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Sociology
- Vol. 24 (4) , 597-615
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038590024004003
Abstract
This paper questions the commitment of ethnography to the goal of producing theoretical descriptions of particular settings, groups or organisations. It is argued that both the concepts of theory and description assumed by this goal are misconceived. Various interpretations of the concept of theory embedded in ethnographic work are examined, revealing some serious difficulties. It is also argued that the concept of ethnographic description, as currently conceived, obscures the role of values and purposes in structuring descriptions. The conclusion reached is that the goals of ethnographic research need rethinking.Keywords
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- Ethnography for Survival?: a reply to WoodsBritish Educational Research Journal, 1987
- Ethnography at the Crossroads: a reply to HammersleyBritish Educational Research Journal, 1987
- Ethnography and the Cumulative Development of Theory: a discussion of Woods' proposal for ‘phase two’ research1British Educational Research Journal, 1987
- Generic Social ProcessesJournal of Contemporary Ethnography, 1987
- Toward Resolving the Controversy over "Thick Description"Current Anthropology, 1986
- Geertz on religion: The theory and the practiceReligion, 1986
- The Thick and the Thin: On the Interpretive Theoretical Program of Clifford Geertz [and Comments and Reply]Current Anthropology, 1984
- The Poverty of the Sociology of Deviance: Nuts, Sluts, and PrevertsSocial Problems, 1972
- Social-Class Variations in the Teacher-Pupil RelationshipJournal of Educational Sociology, 1952
- The Criminal Violation of Financial TrustAmerican Sociological Review, 1950