Page 244 -

232 CHAPTER 9 Ethnography

general theories that explain the patterns. This inductive focus stands in direct con-
trast to hypothesis-driven research, which defines a narrowly controlled experiment
to test well-defined alternative explanations or designs (Angrosino, 2007). There are
no controls in ethnography—every case is unique.
Although ethnographies are similar to case studies (Chapter 7), there are some
important differences. Like case studies, ethnographies rely on multiple types of
data to confirm observations, a process known as triangulation (Angrosino, 2007).
Ethnographies and case studies are both time intensive, personal, and largely based
in the context being studied (Angrosino, 2007). The context often differentiates these
research methods from methods such as surveys, experimental design, and other
methods. In ethnography, context often is the main focus of understanding.
The primary difference between ethnography and case-study research lies in the
use of theory. Case-study research is often based on hypotheses or propositions that
guide the questions being asked. This theory-driven approach is subtly different from
1
the inductive strategies used in ethnography. Informally, you might think of an eth-
nographic study as being a very preliminary, exploratory case study.
Ethnographic research also differs from case studies and other qualitative research
methods in the extent of the engagement with the group or situation being studied.
The goal of ethnographic participation is to come as close as possible to achieving
the rich perspective that comes from being part of the group being studied. Although
this is rarely, if ever, possible (see Section 9.4.2), ethnographers tend to become
deeply involved with the groups or situations that they are studying. Unlike case
studies or other qualitative research projects that may use observations, interviews,
and a similar range of data collection techniques in a relatively constrained manner
over a short period of time, ethnographic research generally makes more fluid use of
these techniques over a longer term, in close interaction with participants. In ethno-
graphic research, the distinctions between “interaction,” “interview,” and “observa-
tion” are almost nonexistent, with all of these activities potentially occurring in the
space of a few minutes. Of course, these somewhat arbitrary distinctions exist along
a continuum with no clear boundaries: a long-term, highly interactive case study may
be hard to distinguish from an ethnographic study.
One final note in defining ethnography: traditionally, the term “ethnography” has
been used to define both the practice and the written outcome. Thus, ethnography is
both a process and the outcome of that process. Like case studies, ethnographies are
often narrative, telling the story behind the context being studied (Angrosino, 2007).
Often, these stories strive to convey perspectives of the people being studied: giving
“accounts of an event like community members do” has been described as an impor-
tant ethnographic goal (Agar, 1980).

1
The role of theory has been the subject of much debate in ethnographic circles. There are numerous
theoretical perspectives on ethnography (Angrosino, 2007). Some viewpoints reject the notion of eth-
nography as a tool for developing theories, claiming that it is (or should be) merely descriptive. This
perspective has generated substantial discussion (Shapiro, 1994; Sharrock and Randall, 2004).