Abstract
Against the background of recent methodological debates pitting ethnography against interviewing, this paper offers a defense of the latter and argues for methodological pluralism and pragmatism and against methodological tribalism. Drawing on our own work and on other sources, we discuss some of the strengths and weaknesses of interviewing. We argue that concern over whether attitudes correspond to behavior is an overly narrow and misguided question. Instead we offer that we should instead consider what interviewing and other data gathering techniques are best suited for. In our own work, we suggest, we have used somewhat unusual interviewing techniques to reveal how institutional systems and the construction of social categories, boundaries, and status hierarchies organize social experience. We also point to new methodological challenges, particularly concerning the incorporation of historical and institutional dimensions into interview-based studies. We finally describe fruitful directions for future research, which may result in methodological advances while bringing together the strengths of various data collection techniques.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This rate is comparable to the growth rate of the social sciences. The rates were 48.1 for sociology and 50.5 for the social sciences for the period 1984–2010 https://webcaspar.nsf.gov/OlapBuilder)
Personal communication.
Patricia White, personal communication.
DiMaggio (forthcoming) response to Jerolmack and Khan (forthcoming) summarizes a number of these (concerning survey methods).
Snow et al. (2003) noted a propensity among some ethnographers to eschew making explicit theoretical contributions. In Bourdieusian terms, ethnographic up-manship would be interpreted as an alternative strategy for gaining symbolic capital in the disciplinary field. In our view, engaging in theoretical discovery, extension, and refinement would be a productive response for the field as a whole. Ethnographers who leave their mark tend to be those who do precisely that.
The relationship between symbolic interactionism (where ethnography has historically been the preferred method of data collection) and cultural sociology is a complex one, in part because the influence of the former declined as the latter increased. At the same time, the two subfields are closely intertwined as a number of leading cultural sociologists are ethnographers, have been influenced by symbolic interactionism, or would self-define as interactionists. For its part, the renewed enthusiasm for ethnography is tied to a revival of the use of qualitative methods in urban sociology, the sociology of education, the sociology of the family, and other fields—a revival empowered in part by the remarkable success of cultural sociology. The growth in popularity of specific techniques of data collection should be understood in the context of the ebbs and flows of disciplinary currents where the relative importance of subfields and topics is tied to intergenerational dynamics (or field dynamics in Bourdieusian terms (Bourdieu 1990)).
Extensive discussions within anthropology and sociology about the importance of “reflexivity” and the constructed nature of the social scientist’s narrative (e.g. Bourdieu et al. 1991) have left this positivist faith intact for some, hiding under the surface of debates about which method is “best.”
In line with our plea for methodological pluralism, we appreciate and recognize the utility of such methods for a specific range of questions, but are concerned about their being prescribed as a universal methodological gold standard in some of our neighboring disciplines—in some subfields of political science and economics in particular.
The point made in footnote 9 applies again.
There may also be a simplification of what ethnography means, used as synonymous with all observational methods. In fact, classic ethnography involved 1) long term (often very long term) embedding in a field site; 2) systematic mapping of the cultural and institutional system of the locals, which required enough interviewing to elicit “this is our kinship system; these are our rituals; these are our myths; this is why we do things this way”; 3) enough observation to trace the way those institutions and cultural meanings were actually employed, or what other patterns and practices organized life for the locals; and 4) repeated questioning to elicit explanations of practices and cultural forms the ethnographer did not understand.
For instance, in his critique of the NSF report on the evaluation of qualitative research in the social sciences (Lamont and Small 2008), Becker (2009) bolsters his position by citing a passage by John Comaroff, which is part of the report and expresses positions that are central to its overall argument.
As we both experienced. See the appendix of Talk of Love and Lamont 2004 for our published reflections on some limitations of interviewing.
An exception here is survey researchers, who typically use interview data from large, systematic samples. They, like others with strong methodological commitments, tend to have theoretical or analytic taken-for-granteds that arise out of their methods, such as modeling explanation in terms of “variables” and “variance explained” (Abbott 1988a) or seeking explanations in terms of aggregated characteristics of individuals rather than interactional processes (Jerolmack and Kahn 2014).
Of course, building on Emerson (2001), we acknowledge the diversity that exists among ethnographers, including in their degree of interest and focus on meaning-making (after all, again, some of the best ethnographers are long-time card carrying cultural sociologists and they played a crucial role in the development of the field).
One could deepen one’s understanding of a situation by simply spending more time in it. Indeed, this generally improves the depth of the verstehen of the actors involved. But whether this results in theoretical advancement will vary with whether the researcher has at his/her disposal a broad theoretical tool-kit and set of questions against which to examine the empirical reality under consideration—as suggested by Weiss (1994) and more recently by Snow et al. (2003) and in Timmermans and Tavory (2012)’s plea for an abductive approach to qualitative research. Length and depth of fieldwork experience can no more serve as a warrant for the quality of a contribution than being an insider to a group determines the quality or authenticity of accounts of the group (Young 2004). Moreover, while ethnographers have won credibility by studying difficult and challenging populations in contexts far removed from the comfort of American academe, more reflection is needed among sociologist ethnographers concerning the types of capitals and representation claims associated with such feats, especially in light of the extensive anthropological debates about representation generated by the very influential Writing Culture by Marcus and Fischer (1986). Of course, many ethnographers are already well aware of such issues, as underscored by Emerson (2001).
The difficulty of finding the right terminology for analyzing “situations” suggests the need for theoretical work that could clarify the choice of research methods for analyzing socially situated action. Erving Goffman developed a complex typology of situations, defined by the interactional rules that obtained in each, from behavior in public places (1963), to the rules that demarcated “front stage” and “backstage” in occupational settings (Goffman 1959), to the “frames” that people used to define what kind of situation they were in and what rules therefore applied (Goffman 1974). But most subsequent ethnography has shown less interest in a systematic analysis of kinds of situations. There are important analyses of specific idiocultures (Fine 2012) and examples like Eliasoph and Lichterman’s (2003) suggestion that “group styles” powerfully shape interactions. But we lack even a reasonable vocabulary for thinking about how specific “settings” (such as being at home at the dinner table versus in a store or at work), particular “contexts” (as when a polarized political system gives even small gestures larger meanings), or enduring community contexts (such as a neighborhood community, with its own culturally marked geography, recognizable groups, and more or less stable personal ties) influence action.
See Cherlin (2010) for a complementary approach using historical and survey data.
A broad overview of the Berkeley and Oakland Growth Studies can be found at http://ihd.berkeley.edu/igs.htm and at http://lifecourse.web.unc.edu/research_projects/oakland_berkeley/
Of course, ethnographers often hear their subjects talk about the past. But it is difficult for them to obtain an extensive narrative without resorting to interviews. This shows the extent to which the distinction between interviewing and ethnography is largely an artificial one.
The current debate is a replay of old tendencies within symbolic interactionism, as Blumer was also criticized for advocating the exclusive use of ethnography, which is not without perils. In Best’s (2006) words, “Following in Blumer’s footsteps, interactionists run the risk of retreating into armchairs cushioned by theoretical presumptions we find comfortable, and then characterizing this retreat as principled” (12). We are hopeful as a number of the younger practitioners of the tradition are already distinguishing themselves by their theoretical acumen and their ability to connect with a range of traditions, which include French and American sociological pragmatism as well as cultural sociology.
References
Abbott, Andrew. 1988a. Transcending general linear reality. Sociological Theory 6(2): 169–186.
Abbott, Andrew. 1988b. The system of professions: An essay on the division of labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Abbott, Andrew. 2001. Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2003. The meanings of social life: A Cultural Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, Elijah. 2002. The ideologically driven critique. American Journal of Sociology 107(6): 1533–1550.
Armstrong, Elizabeth, and Laura Hamilton. 2013. Paying for the party: How college maintains inequality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bail, Christopher. 2012. The fringe effect: Civil society organizations and the evolution of media discourse about Islam. American Sociological Review 77(7): 855–879.
Bartels, Larry M. 2002. Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior 24(2): 117–150.
Becker, Howard. 2009. How to find out how to do qualitative research. Howard S. Becker’s Homepage. http://home.earthlink.net/~hsbecker/articles/NSF.html. Accessed 6 Dec 2013.
Beisel, Nicola. 1997. Imperiled innocents: Anthony Comstock and family reproduction in Victorian America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Best, Joel. 2006. Blumer’s dilemma: The critic as a tragic figure. The American Sociologist 37: 5–14.
Biernacki, Richard. 1995. The fabrication of labor: Germany and Britain, 1640–1914. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Biernacki, Richard. 2012. Reinventing evidence in social inquiry: Decoding facts and variables. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. Homo academicus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean-Claude Chamboredon, and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1991. The craft of sociology: Epistemological preliminaries. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter and Co.
Briggs, Charles L. 1986. Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Camic, Charles, Neil Gross, and Michèle Lamont. 2011. Social knowledge in the making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cherlin, Andrew. 2010. The Marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today. New York: Vintage.
Collier, Jane Fishburne. 1997. From duty to desire: Remaking families in a Spanish village. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
DiMaggio, Paul. 1982. Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston, I: The creation of an organizational base for high culture in America, and Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston, II: The classification and framing of American art. Media, Culture and Society 4: 33–50. and 303–322.
Dohan, Daniel. 2003. The price of poverty: Money, work, and culture in the Mexican American barrio. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Duneier, Mitchell. 2002. What kind of combat sport is sociology? American Journal of Sociology 107(6): 1551–1576.
Duneier, Mitchell. 2006. Ethnography, the ecological fallacy, and the 1995 Chicago heat wave. American Sociological Review 71(4): 679–688.
Edin, Kathryn, and Maria Kefalas. 2005. Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Elder, Glen H., Jr. 1974. Children of the Great Depression: Social change in life experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eliasoph, Nina. 1998. Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Eliasoph, Nina, and Paul Lichterman. 2003. Culture in interaction. American Journal of Sociology 108: 735–794.
Emerson, Robert M. 2001. The face of contemporary ethnography. In Contemporary field research: Perspectives and formulations, ed. Robert M. Emerson, 27–54. Long Grove: Waveland Press.
Ferree, Mayra Marx. 2012. Varieties of feminism: German gender politics in global perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Fine, Gary Alan. 2012. Tiny publics: A theory of group action and culture. New York: Russell Sage.
Fourcade, Marion. 2009. Economists and societies: Discipline and profession in the United States, Britain, and France, 1890s to 1990s. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Furstenberg, Frank F. 2007. Teenage mothers in later life (and the researchers who study them). Contexts 6: 78–79.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic.
Glaeser, Andreas. 2000. Divided in unity: Identity, Germany, and the Berlin police. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Glaeser, Andreas. 2011. Political epistemics: The secret police, the opposition, and the end of East German socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: Free Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Goldberg, Amir. 2011. Mapping shared understandings using relational class analysis: The case of the cultural omnivore reexamined. American Journal of Sociology 116(5): 1397–1436.
Guba, Egon G., and Yvona S. Lincoln. 2004. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Theories and issues. In Approaches to qualitative research: A read on theory and practice, eds. Sharleen Nagy Hesse-Biber and Patricia Leavy, 1–38. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harding, David, Michèle Lamont, and Mario L. Small, eds. 2010. Reconsidering culture and poverty. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 629: 6–27
Hareven, Tamara. 1982. Family time and industrial time. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hermanowicz, Joseph C. 2013. The longitudinal qualitative interview. Qualitative Sociology 36: 189–208.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1989. The second shift. New York: Penguin.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 2003. The commercialization of intimate life: Notes from home and work. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 2012. The outsourced self: What happens when we pay others to live our lives for us. New York: Henry Holt.
Igo, Sarah E. 2007. The averaged American: Surveys, citizens, and the making of a mass public. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Jerolmack, Colin and Shamus Khan. 2014. Toward an understanding of the relationship between accounts and action. Sociological Methods and Research 43(1): 1–12.
Karabel, Jerome. 2005. The chosen: The hidden history of admission and exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Klinenberg, Eric. 2006. Blaming the victims: Hearsay, labeling, and the hazards of quick-hit disaster ethnography. American Sociological Review 71(4): 689–698.
Lamont, Michèle. 1992. Money, morals, and manners: The culture of the French and American upper-middle class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lamont, Michèle. 2000. The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class, and immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lamont, Michèle. 2004. A life of sad but justified choices. In Researching race and racism, ed. Martin Bulmer and John Solomos, 163–171. New York: Routledge.
Lamont, Michèle. 2009. How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lamont, Michèle, and Mario L. Small. 2008. How culture matters: Enriching our understanding of poverty. In The colors of poverty: Why racial and ethnic disparities persist, ed. David Harris and Ann Lin, 76–102. New York: Russell Sage.
Lamont, Michèle, and Laurent Thévenot. 2000. Rethinking comparative cultural sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lareau, Annette. 2011. Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life, with an update a decade later, 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lareau, Annette. 2012. Using the terms hypothesis and variable for qualitative work: A critical reflection. Journal of Marriage and Family 74(4): 671–677.
Luke, Nancy, Shelley Clark, and Eliya M. Zulu. 2011. The relationship history calendar: Improving the scope and quality of data on youth sexual behavior. Demography 48(3): 1151–1176.
Luker, Kristin. 1984. Abortion and the politics of motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Luker, Kristin. 2010. Salsa dancing into the social sciences: Research in an age of Info-glut. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
MacLeod, Jay. 1995. Ain’t no makin’ it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-income neighborhood, 3rd ed. Boulder: Westview.
Marcus, George, and Michael Fischer. 1986. Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental moment in the human sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Martin, John Levi. 2000. What do animals do all day? The division of labor, class bodies, and totemic thinking in the popular imagination. Poetics 27: 195–231.
Martin, John Levi. 2010. Life is a beach but you’re an ant, and other unwelcome news for the sociology of culture. Poetics 38: 228–243.
McLean, Paul D. 2007. The art of the network: Strategic interaction and patronage in renaissance Florence. Durham: Duke University Press.
Miller, Kate, Eliya Msiyaphazi Zulu, and Susan Cotts Watkins. 2001. Husband-wife survey responses in Malawi. Studies in Family Planning 32(2): 161–174.
Mische, Ann. 2009. Partisan publics: Communication and contention across Brazilian youth activist networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mischel, Walter, and Yuichi Shoda. 1995. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review 102(2): 246–268.
Mohr, John W. 1998. Measuring meaning structures. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 345–370.
Mohr, John W., and Vincent Duquenne. 1997. The duality of culture and practice: Poverty relief in New York City, 1888–1917. Theory and Society 26: 305–356.
Mohr, John W., Robin Wagner-Pacifici, Ronald L. Breiger, and Petko Bogdanov. 2013. Graphing the grammar of motives in U.S. National Security Strategies: Cultural interpretation, automated text analysis, and the drama of global politics. Poetics 41(6): 670–700.
Mullins, Nicholas. 1973. Theories and theory groups in contemporary American sociology. New York: Harper & Row.
Newman, Katherine. 2002. No shame: The view from the left bank. American Journal of Sociology 107(6): 1577–1599.
Pachucki, Mark A., and Ronald L. Breiger. 2010. Cultural holes: Beyond relationality in social networks and culture. Annual Review of Sociology 36: 205–224.
Pager, Devah. 2009. Marked: Race, crime and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Plummer, Mary L., et al. 2004. A bit more truthful: The validity of adolescent sexual behaviour data collected in rural northern Tanzania using five methods. Sexually Transmitted Infections 80: 49–56.
Pugh, Allison J. 2013. What good are interviews for thinking about culture? Demystifying interpretive analysis. American Journal of Cultural Sociology 1: 42–68.
Riessman, Catherine Kohler. 1993. Narrative analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.
Rivera, Lauren A. 2012. Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms. American Sociological Review 77(6): 999–1012.
Rosaldo, Renato. 1980. Ilongot headhunting, 1883–1974: A study in society and history. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Savage, Mike, and Roger Burrows. 2007. The coming crisis of empirical sociology. Sociology 41(5): 885–899.
Schalet, Amy T. 2011. Not under my roof: Parents, teens, and the culture of sex. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sewell, William H., Jr. 2005. Logics of history: Social theory and social transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Small, Mario. 2011. How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing literature. Annual Review of Sociology 37(1): 57–86.
Snow, David A., Calvin Morrill, and Leon Anderson. 2003. Elaborating analytical ethnography: Linking fieldwork and theory. Ethnography 4(2): 181–200.
Stein, Arlene. 1997. Sex and sensibility: Stories of a lesbian generation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Swidler, Ann. 1979. Organization without authority: Dilemmas of social control in free schools. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Swidler, Ann. 2001. Talk of love: How culture matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tavory, Iddo. 2011. The question of moral action: A formalist position. Sociological Theory 29(4): 272–293.
Tavory, Iddo, and Ann Swidler. 2009. Condom semiotics: Meaning and condom use in rural Malawi. American Sociological Review 74(2): 171–189.
Timmermans, Stefan, and Iddo Tavory. 2012. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory 30(3): 167–186.
Tugal, Cihan. 2009. Passive revolution: Absorbing the Islamic challenge to capitalism. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Turner, Stephen, and Jonathan Turner. 1990. The impossible science: An institutional analysis of American sociology. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Vaisey, Stephen. 2009. Motivation and justification: A dual-process model of culture in action. American Journal of Sociology 114(6): 1675–1715.
Vaisey, Stephen. 2014a. Is interviewing compatible with the dual-process model of culture? American Journal of Cultural Sociology 2: 150–158.
Vaisey, Stephen. 2014b. The “attitudinal fallacy” is a fallacy: Why we need many methods to study culture. Sociological Methods and Research. doi:10.1177/0049124114523395.
Vinitzky-Seroussi, Vered. 1998. After pomp and circumstance: High school reunion as an autobiographical occasion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wacquant, Loïc. 2002. Scrutinizing the street: Poverty, morality, and the pitfalls of urban ethnography. American Journal of Sociology 107(6): 1468–1532.
Watkins, Susan Cotts, and Ann Swidler. 2009. Hearsay ethnography: Conversational journals as a method for studying culture in action. Poetics 37(2): 162–184.
Weiss, Robert S. 1994. Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: Free Press.
Wilson, William Julius, and Anmol Chaddha. 2009. The role of theory in ethnographic research. Ethnography 10(4): 549–564.
Yin, Robert. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods, 1–65. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Young Jr., Alford. 2004. Experiences in ethnographic interviewing about race: The inside and outside of it. In Researching race and racism, ed. Martin Bulmer and John Solomos, 187–202. London: Routledge.
Zelizer, Viviana. 2007. Undeafening the dialogue between economics and sociology. Economics-Sociology Workshop, Princeton University, February 5.
Acknowledgement
An earlier version of this paper was presented in a session on “Varieties of Evidence and Method in Cultural Analysis” at the American Sociological Association Meetings, New York City, August 9–13, 2013. We thank Mabel Berezin for soliciting our contribution and for her comments, and the participants in the Culture and Social Analysis Workshop of the Department of Sociology at Harvard University, particularly Curtis Chan and Larissa Buchholz, for their comments and suggestions. We also thank Bart Bonikowski, Matt Desmond, Annette Lareau, and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lamont, M., Swidler, A. Methodological Pluralism and the Possibilities and Limits of Interviewing. Qual Sociol 37, 153–171 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-014-9274-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-014-9274-z