Martyn Hammersley

What's wrong with ethnography? : methodological explorations

Part One: Ethnography, Theory and Reality 1. Whats wrong with ethnography? The myth of theoretical description 2. Some questions about theory in ethnography and history 3. Ethnoraphy and realism 4. By what criteria should ethnographic research be judged? Part Two: Ethnography, Relevance and Practice 5. The relevance of ethnography 6. Critical theory as a model for ethnography 7. Parts that even ethnography cannot reach: Some reflections on the relationship between research and policy 8. On practitioner ethnography Part Three: Qualitative versus Quantitative Method 9. Deconstructing the quantitative-qualitative divide 10. Keeping the converstion open: the relationship between quantitative and qualitative 11. The logic of theory-testing in case study research 12. So, what are case studies?

On Feminist Methodology

There is now a considerable literature advocating a feminist methodology. This article summarises the features of such a methodology under four headings: the ubiquitous social significance of gender, the validity of experience as against method, the rejection of hierarchy in the research relationship, and the adoption of the emancipation of women as the goal of research and the criterion of validity. The arguments supporting each of these themes are assessed. The conclusion reached is that while some of these arguments are convincing the overall case for a feminist methodology is not.

Ethnography: problems and prospects

This article reviews a range of difficult issues that currently face ethnographic research, and offers some reflections on them. These issues include: how ethnographers define the spatial and temporal boundaries of what they study; how they determine the context that is appropriate for understanding it; in what senses ethnography can be—or is—virtual rather than actual; the role of interviews as a data source; the relationship between ethnography and discourse analysis; the tempting parallel with imaginative writing; and, finally, whether ethnography should have, or can avoid having, political or practical commitments of some kind, beyond its aim of producing value-relevant knowledge.

Educational Research, Policymaking and Practice

Educational research and its relationship with policy making and practice has been a perennial concern. This book deals with some basic and controversial questions about that issue, including: - Can there be harmony in the relationship between researchers and educational policymakers or practitioners? - Do increases in knowledge always lead to practical improvement, and never to undesirable consequences? - Would educational research flourish if it were subjected to more central, and external, control? - What is the role of research reviews in making the results of research publicly available? This book maps the demands now being made on educational research against the background complexities of the relationship between research and practice.

The Dilemma of Qualitative Method: Herbert Blumer and the Chicago Tradition

1. Philosophy and the human sciences in the nineteenth century 2. Pragmatism 3. Chicago sociology 4. Case study versus statistics: the rise of sociological positivism 5. Against the trend: Blumers critique of quantitative method 6. Blumers concept of science 7. Blumers alternative: naturalistic research 8. An assessment of naturalistic research.

Educational Research and Teaching: a response to David Hargreaves' TTA lecture

Abstract David Hargreaves has argued that educational research fails to provide a sound evidence‐base for teaching: it does not generate a cumulative body of knowledge; and it is not geared to resolving the classroom problems that teachers face. As a solution, he recommends that teachers play a more central role in setting the agenda for research and in carrying it out. I accept much of Hargreaves’ criticism of educational research as failing to develop cumulative knowledge, but I suggest that the problems involved in this are more difficult than he acknowledges, and that what he proposes is likely to worsen rather than solve the problem. I also question whether research can fulfill the direct role in relation to practice which Hargreaves envisages. He appeals to the example of evidence‐based medicine, but I suggest that this is problematic even in its own context. I conclude by raising questions about the sort of central planning of research that Hargreaves recommends.

Using qualitative methods

This paper is an in-depth discussion of one particular qualitative approach—ethnography. The author makes the point that the distinctive character of this kind of work derives not so much from the methods used as from a set of underlying methodological principles. These are defined as (1) a concern with discovery and with the generation and development as well as the testing of theory; (2) a commitment to learning the culture of those being studied—in other words, not assuming that one understands the social meanings even of familiar settings but treating events as though they were ‘anthropologically strange’; (3) a recognition of the importance of context, in the sense that to understand actions or events one must view them in the light of related actions and events, and one must be alert to contextual variability in peoples behaviour, including that of putting up a front to deceive others (whether other actors or researchers). Against this background, the author goes on to outline some of the techniques of the ethnographer—grounded theorizing (the two main components being theoretical sampling and the constant comparative method), and two techniques for testing theory (triangulation and analytic induction). He stresses that this is a research tradition still in the throes of development.

Against the ethicists: on the evils of ethical regulation

Ethical regulation of social research has increased considerably in the UK in the past few years, not least as a result of the ESRC’s Research Ethics Framework. This article questions whether ethics committees are capable of making sound judgments about the ethics of what is proposed and practised in particular research projects. In addition, the legitimacy of such regulation is questioned, on ethical grounds. Finally, it is argued that increased regulation will not raise the ‘ethical standard’ of social science and will probably worsen the quality of what it produces.

Some Notes on the Terms ‘Validity’ and ‘Reliability’†

[1]I am obliged to John Scarth, Donald MacKinnon, Barry Cooper and John Bynner for comments on earlier drafts of this article. The errors are of course mine.

Qualitative data archiving: Some reflections on its prospects and problems

The archiving of qualitative data seems likely to become much more common in the future. It promises to make an important contribution to the development of sociological research. This contribution relates to at least two main areas. It should facilitate assessment of the validity of particular studies; and it ought to increase the scope for secondary analysis. At the same time, the archiving of qualitative data and its use are not without problems. This paper examines both the possibilities it opens up and the limits to the contribution it can make.