“How Many Bloody Examples Do You Want?” Fieldwork and Generalisation

Conference paper

Abstract

The title of this paper comes from comments made by an ‘angry’ ethnographer during a debriefing session. It reflects his frustration with a certain analytic mentality that would have him justify his observations in terms of the number of times he had witnessed certain occurrences in the field. Concomitant to this was a concern with the amount of time he had spent in the field and the implication that the duration of fieldwork somehow justified the things that he had seen; the implication being that the more time he spent immersed in the study setting the more valid his findings and, conversely, the less time, the less valid they were. For his interlocutors, these issues speak to the grounds upon which we might draw general insights and lessons from ethnographic research regarding the social or collaborative organisation of human activities. However, the strong implication of the angry ethnographer’s response is that they are of no importance. This paper seeks to unpack his position and explicate what generalisation turns upon from the ethnographer’s perspective. The idea that human activities contain their own means of generalisation that cannot be reduced to extraneous criteria (numbers of observations, duration of fieldwork, sample size, etc.) is key to the exposition.

Keywords

Fatigue Assure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research on which this article is based was funded by RCUK research grants EP/I001816/1, EP/I001778/1, EP/G065802/1, EP/J000604/1 and EP/J000604/2.

References

  1. Agyeman, J., & Neal, S. (Eds.). (2006). The new countryside?. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baccus, M. D. (1986). Sociological indication and the visibility criterion of real world social theorising. In H. Garfinkel (Ed.), Ethnomethodological studies of work (pp. 1–19). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  3. Blau, P. M. (1964). The dynamics of bureaucracy: A study of interpersonal relations in two government agencies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Button, G., & Harper, R. (1996). The relevance of ‘work-practice’ for design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, 4(4), 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crabtree, A., Rouncefield, M., & Tolmie, P. (2012). Doing design ethnography, Springer Google Scholar
  6. Douglas, J. D. (1967). The social meanings of suicide. New Jersey: Princeton.Google Scholar
  7. Edensor, T. (2001). Performing tourism, staging tourism. Tourist Studies, 1(1), 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1991). Collaborative activity and technology design: Task coordination in London Underground control rooms. In Proceedings of the 2 nd European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 65–80). Amsterdam, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Higham, J. (Ed.) (2007). Critical issues in ecotourism, Boston: Elsevier. Google Scholar
  11. Hughes, J., Randall, D., & Shapiro, D. (1992). Faltering from ethnography to design. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 115–122). Toronto: ACM.Google Scholar
  12. Hughes, J., King, V., Rodden, T., & Andersen, H. (1994). Moving out of the control room: ethnography in systems design. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 429–438). Chapel Hill: ACM.Google Scholar
  13. Keith, M. (1992). Angry writing: (Re)presenting the unethical world of the ethnographer. Society and Space, 10, 551–568.Google Scholar
  14. Le Breton, D. (2000). Eloge de la Marche. Paris: Métailié.Google Scholar
  15. Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  16. Sacks, H. (1963). Sociological description. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 8, 1–16.Google Scholar
  17. Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In J. M Maxwell & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 21–27). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Sacks, H. (1992a).In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on Conversation Volumes I & II. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Sacks, H. (1992b). Tying rules. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on Conversation (Vol. I, pp. 150–156). Oxford: Blackwell. Fall 1965, Lecture 4.Google Scholar
  20. Sacks, H. (1992c). The baby cried. The mommy picked it up. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on Conversation (Vol. I, pp. 236–242). Oxford: Blackwell. Lecture 1, Spring 1966.Google Scholar
  21. Sacks, H. (1992d). On sampling and subjectivity. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on Conversation (Vol. I, pp. 483–488). Oxford: Blackwell. Lecture 33, Spring 1966Google Scholar
  22. Sharpley, R., & Jepson, D. (2011). Rural tourism: A spiritual experience? Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1), 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sharrock, W., & Randall, D. (2004). Ethnography, ethnomethodology and the problem of generalisation in design. European Journal of Information Systems, 13, 186–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Staiff, R. (2010). History and tourism: Intertextual representations of Florence. Tourism Analysis, 15(5), 601–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tolmie, P., & Crabtree, A. (2013). A day out in the country. In P. Tolmie, & M. Rouncefield (Ed.), Ethnomethodology at Play. Ashgate.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.Computing DepartmentUniversity of LancasterLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations