No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Ethnography: Bridging the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2024
Abstract
This analytic autoethnographic and autobiographical essay addresses several interrelated questions regarding the use of ethnographic and otherwise ‘qualitative’ research methods in the study of contemporary urban society. The testy relationship between qualitative and quantitative research has historical as well as logico-deductive roots that continue to haunt the social sciences. As to hermeneutics, the debate parallels my academic career journey from Indiana University to Brooklyn College by way of New York University during which I learned that the normative practices of the social and not so social sciences come in a myriad of different competing, and occasionally conflicting, pre- and proscriptions. My intention in this essay is not to construct a fine, or even a crude, philosophical discourse but to argue for more attention to be paid to what social scientists do best as opposed to the labels they apply to each other and their trades. As the positivist founders of sociology would agree, social science is not exempt from the laws of social science. At the conclusion, an example will be given of the kind of knowledge accessible only through direct observation and best conveyed by thick description.
Information
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © ICPHS 2018
References
Anderson, L (2006) Analytic autoethnography, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35(4): 373–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, MI (2006) The location of culture: the urban culturalist perspective, City and Community 5(2): 173–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnier, D (2006) Encounters with the self in social science research: a political scientist looks at autoethnography, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35(4): 410–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Certeau, M de (1985) Practices of Space. In: Blonsky, M (ed.) On Signs. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 122–145.Google Scholar
Cicourel, A (2004) ‘I am NOT Opposed to Quantification or Formalization or Modeling, But Do Not Want to Pursue Quantitative Methods That Are Not Commensurate With the Research Phenomena Addressed.’ Aaron Cicourel in Conversation with Andreas Witzel and Günter Mey, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 5(3), art. 41, http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/549/1186.Google Scholar
Clifford, J, Marcus, G (1986) Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, D, Seawright, J, Brady, HE (2004) Qualitative versus Quantitative: what might this distinction mean? In: Ragin, ChC, Nagel, J, White, P (eds) Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, pp. 71–76.Google Scholar
Denzin, N (2007) Analytic deduction. Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology Online. Available at: http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/public/LOGIN?sessionid=4b6c7f369ba6b11325fa92b8f61dee08&authstatuscode=404.Google Scholar
Follari, JB (2014) Quantitative/Qualitative: the Paleozoic debate, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 15(2). Available at: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs140279.Google Scholar
Geertz, C (1973) The Interpretation of Culture: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, S (1993) Analytic induction revisited, The Canadian Journal of Sociology 18(2): 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haney, DP (2008) The Americanization of Social Science: Intellectuals and Public Responsibility in the Postwar United States. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, RJ, Crittenden, KS (eds) (1968) Proceedings of the Purdue Symposium on Ethnomethodology. West Lafayette: Institute for the Study of Social Change, Department of Sociology, Purdue University.Google Scholar
Ingold, T (2008a) Anthropology is not ethnography. In: Proceedings of the British Academy, 154, British Academy Scholarship Online, pp. 69–92.Google Scholar
Ingold, T (2008b) Bindings against boundaries: entanglements of life in an open world, Environment and Planning A 40(8): 1796–1810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, A, Hockey, J, Dawson, A (eds) (1997) After Writing Culture: Epistemology and Praxis in Contemporary Anthropology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Key, JP (1997) Research Design in Occupational Education: Module R 14. Qualitative Research, http://www.okstate.edu/ag/agedcm4h/academic/aged5980a/5980/newpage21.htm.Google Scholar
Krase, J (2012) Seeing Cities Change: Local Culture and Class. Farnham: Ashgate (now published by Routledge).Google Scholar
Krase, J, LaCerra, C (1991) Ethnicity and Machine Politics. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Lindesmith, AR (1937) The Nature of Opiate Addiction. PhD thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Lindesmith, AR (1952) Two comments on W. S. Robinson's ‘The Logical Structure of Analytic Induction’, American Sociological Review 17: 492–493.Google Scholar
Malpas, J (2013) Hans-Georg Gadamer. In: Zalta, EN (ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/gadamer (accessed 02/03/14).Google Scholar
Murdock, GP et al. (2008) Outline of Cultural Materials, 6th revised edition with modifications. New Haven, CT: Human Relations Area Files.Google Scholar
Oevermann, U et al. (1987) Structures of meaning and objective hermeneutics. In: Meha, V et al. (eds) Modern German Sociology. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 436–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oktay, JS (2012) Grounded Theory. London: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199753697.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pink, S, Morgan, J (2013) Short-term ethnography: intense routes to knowing, Symbolic Interaction 36(3): 351–361.10.1002/symb.66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psathas, G, ed. (1973) Phenomenological Sociology: Issues and Applications. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Robinson, W (1950) Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals, American Sociological Review 15: 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russo, F (2006) The rationale of variation in methodological and evidential pluralism, Philosophica 77: 97–123.10.21825/philosophica.82199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutgers, MR, Schreurs, P (2004) Weber's neo-Kantian roots, [comma!] Administrative Theory & Praxis 26(1): 103–111.Google Scholar
Schlichtman, JJ, Patch, J (2013) Gentrifier? Who, Me? Interrogating the gentrifier in the mirror, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38(4): 1491–1508.10.1111/1468-2427.12067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, ML (2009) How many cases do I need? On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research, [comma!] Ethnography 10(1): 5–38.10.1177/1466138108099586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorokin, PA (1956) Fads and Foibles in Modern Sociology. Chicago: Henry Regnery Press.Google Scholar
Tacq, J (2007) Znanieck's analytic induction as a method of sociological research, Polish Sociological Review 158(2): 187–208.Google Scholar
Turner, RH (1953) The quest for universals in sociological research, American Sociological Review 18: 604–611.10.2307/2088113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, SP (2007) Defining a discipline: sociology and its philosophical problems, from its classics to 1947. In: Turner, PS, Risjord, MW (eds) Philosophy of Anthropology and Sociology. A volume in the Handbook of the Philosophy of Science Series. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 3–70.10.1016/B978-044451542-1/50003-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M (1991 [1921]) The nature of social action. In: Runciman, WG (ed.) Weber: Selections in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 7–32.Google Scholar
Wiley, N (1979) The rise and fall of dominating theories in American sociology. In: WE, Snizek, ER, Furman, MK, Miller (eds) Theory and Research. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 47–79.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by