Search results

Purpose – This chapter explores a traditional mode of ethnography referred to as ‘realist ethnography’ as it relates to sport and physical culture (SPC) research.

Design/methodology/approach – The chapter discusses different approaches to ethnography, but principally addresses a realist ethnography I conducted on Ashtanga yoga in Canada.

Findings – I discuss how data evolved from the realist ethnographic method, and outline the manner in which ethnographic research is as a ‘way of life’. The chapter concludes that the realist ethnographic method is not untenable, as some authors suggest, but rather a viable and exciting mode of knowledge production in the SPC field.

Originality/value – The chapter is original work. It makes a case for the retention of realist ethnographies in our methodological lexicon, and illustrates the empirical process of writing culture. It also endeavours to engage students and scholars alike regarding the value of ethnographic methods more broadly.

Since the Jellinekian Foundation of modern alcohol studies 75 years ago, no one has yet systematically studied the role of his ethnographic studies, his university attendance and engagement in psychoanalytic work leading to the birth of his first book (published in 1917), which applied an ethnographic approach. The purpose of this paper is to uncover and show the ethnographic, experimental psychological and psychoanalytic roots in Jellinek’s different models of alcohol problems, from the conventional medical one, though the Alcoholics Anonymous-inspired concept, to the species of alcoholism theory.

Using the data from their research in the archives of Budapest, Berlin, Leipzig and Grenoble, the authors examine Jellinek’s scientific output in alcohol studies. They focus on data related to Jellinek’s activity in statistics, ethnography including field work and the business model of psychoanalysis.

Drawing from various traditions of science, Jellinek acquired considerable sources of knowledge with the help of his friends and teachers during his formative years, which later led him to renew and transform his models of alcohol problems. New data on Jellinek’s personal history, a by-product of the archival research, is also presented.

The Jellinekian heritage, including his cross-fertilisation approach, represents a vast reserve for addiction science.

This paper not only adds to the understanding of the history of addiction, but might also lead to a rearranging of our knowledge about the founder of the field.

This paper is the first in a series that reprints methodological appendices or methods chapters found in workplace and organisational ethnographic books, and provides an opportunity for reflection by the author through an introductory commentary. Simon Down, the author of Narratives of Enterprise (Down, 2006) reflects on the writing and the research underpinning his ethnography. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The reprinting of such chapters will enhance access to key ethnographic texts, and facilitate reflection on methodological choices authors made. In so doing this paper will provide insights into methodological ethnographic writing, and show how sensibilities and fashions change over time.

Narratives of Enterprise (Down, 2006) examined how two small business managers in a single firm construct an entrepreneurial self-identity, and what this process of self-creation means for the individuals and how the firm is managed. The key topics explored in the book, self-identity as a conceptual tool and enterprise as a social and economic reality, have both grown in relevance and importance since the research was conducted. Down also reflects on that nature and dynamism of friendship in research practice.

Reflection on choices made at some distance can provide particular and valuable insights into the development of research practice.

Geertz is well known for his methodology. Many Symbolic Interactionists refer to his notion of “thick description.” They may not know his work on Indonesia in general, but they often know his famous essay on the Balinese cockfight: “Deep Play” (Geertz, 1972, 1973). That essay is often held up as an exemplary “model” of ethnographic fieldwork. But we need to examine what he calls “thick description” more carefully. After the first few pages of the essay there is actually very little “idiographic description” per se. Much of the paper concerns general description and analysis. We do not get a blow-by-blow account of a cockfight as viewed by Geertz. Instead we get an analysis that is based on Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism (Parekh, 1998). There is a good deal missing from the broader analysis as well. Much of that can be found in other work (Geertz, 1959, 1966, 1980, 1995). Students who only read “Deep Play” often form a superficial impression of the method of “thick description” and a distorted sense of Balinese culture (Howe, 2001; Vickers, 1996 [1981]; Warren, 1993). This essay supplements Geertz’s essay with a discussion of a religious ceremony of far more importance than the largely secular cockfight. I touch on a central feature of Balinese society not emphasized by Geertz: the temple anniversary festival. It is called an odalan (Belo, 1966 [1953a]; Eiseman, 1990; Geertz, 2004). But the problem is not just restricted to the “Deep Play” essay. Geertz’s other work is often also not based primarily on ethnographic thick description. It concerns historical and sociological generalizations. Those are often based on archives and general fieldwork. Geertz also benefits from reading of Dutch research not available in English. The celebrations which take place at a temple are “deeper” than more immediate, largely secular games like a cockfight. Geertz’s oeuvre is well worth reading, but his notion of “thick description” needs to be seen in a broader, comparative historical sociological context. That involves Interpretive research paradigms that Geertz, as a symbolic anthropologist, distanced himself from, including Symbolic Interactionism and Weberian verstehende Soziologie.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the myths and challenges in the field of organizational ethnography and methodological angst.

This paper is initially written as an invited keynote address for the 3rd Annual Joint Symposium on “Current Developments in Ethnographic Research in the Social and Management Sciences” (University of Liverpool Management School and Keele University Institute for Public Policy and Management, Liverpool, September 3‐5, 2008). It explores what might be distinctive about organizational ethnography and how that might be different from “anthropological” ethnography. In particular, it engages a kind of collective methodological performance anxiety among organizational studies scholars without formal training in anthropology who do ethnographic research.

The paper argues that it is time to be explicit about a variety of forms of professional angst that many ethnographic researchers within organizational studies carry which have not been discussed.

The paper is of value to those willing to consider the myths and challenges that need engaging and perhaps uprooting and casting off.