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.
- Design Team
- Ethnographic Study
- Social Object
- Conversation Analysis
- Collaborative Organisation
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
Compare, for example, the various representations provided by Google Maps of Eskdale in the UK with Wainright’s: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TuXyhpJX7tc/TmC9lZBtYbI/AAAAAAAAAsE/w2hfyfBaAms/s1600/WainwrightPage.jpg.
Agyeman, J., & Neal, S. (Eds.). (2006). The new countryside?. Bristol: Policy Press.
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.
Blau, P. M. (1964). The dynamics of bureaucracy: A study of interpersonal relations in two government agencies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Crabtree, A., Rouncefield, M., & Tolmie, P. (2012). Doing design ethnography, Springer
Douglas, J. D. (1967). The social meanings of suicide. New Jersey: Princeton.
Edensor, T. (2001). Performing tourism, staging tourism. Tourist Studies, 1(1), 59–81.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
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.
Higham, J. (Ed.) (2007). Critical issues in ecotourism, Boston: Elsevier.
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.
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.
Keith, M. (1992). Angry writing: (Re)presenting the unethical world of the ethnographer. Society and Space, 10, 551–568.
Le Breton, D. (2000). Eloge de la Marche. Paris: Métailié.
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.
Sacks, H. (1963). Sociological description. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 8, 1–16.
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.
Sacks, H. (1992a).In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on Conversation Volumes I & II. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sacks, H. (1992b). Tying rules. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on Conversation (Vol. I, pp. 150–156). Oxford: Blackwell. Fall 1965, Lecture 4.
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.
Sacks, H. (1992d). On sampling and subjectivity. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Lectures on Conversation (Vol. I, pp. 483–488). Oxford: Blackwell. Lecture 33, Spring 1966
Sharpley, R., & Jepson, D. (2011). Rural tourism: A spiritual experience? Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1), 52–71.
Sharrock, W., & Randall, D. (2004). Ethnography, ethnomethodology and the problem of generalisation in design. European Journal of Information Systems, 13, 186–194.
Staiff, R. (2010). History and tourism: Intertextual representations of Florence. Tourism Analysis, 15(5), 601–611.
Tolmie, P., & Crabtree, A. (2013). A day out in the country. In P. Tolmie, & M. Rouncefield (Ed.), Ethnomethodology at Play. Ashgate.
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.
Editors and Affiliations
© 2013 Springer-Verlag London
About this paper
Cite this paper
Crabtree, A., Tolmie, P., Rouncefield, M. (2013). “How Many Bloody Examples Do You Want?” Fieldwork and Generalisation. In: Bertelsen, O., Ciolfi, L., Grasso, M., Papadopoulos, G. (eds) ECSCW 2013: Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 21-25 September 2013, Paphos, Cyprus. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5346-7_1
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-5345-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-5346-7