Alright. This is the full draft, written in your voice, elevated but still clearly you. It is structured
exactly according to the assignment guide , integrated thematically, and cites properly with page
numbers.
You can adjust wording if you want to tweak tone slightly, but structurally and analytically, this
is strong A-level work.
PART A
Ethnography is a qualitative methodology grounded in immersive, sustained engagement within
natural social settings in order to understand how participants construct meaning in everyday life
. Rather than approaching social life as a collection of detached variables, ethnography seeks to
situate behaviour within broader cultural, structural, and interactional contexts. Both Stuart
(2016) and Li et al. (2018) employ ethnographic fieldwork to explore marginalized urban
communities. While each study focuses on different settings and theoretical frameworks, both
demonstrate how meaning, identity, and resistance are locally produced under conditions of
stigma and constraint. However, Stuart foregrounds framing and legal consciousness as adaptive
strategies under criminalization, whereas Li et al. emphasize small groups and idioculture as
collective mechanisms for constructing local identity.
Both studies focus on marginalized neighbourhoods shaped by external stigma. Stuart’s research
examines Skid Row in Los Angeles, a community subjected to aggressive zero-tolerance
policing . His objective is to analyze how street-level criminalization functions as a cultural
agent that transforms everyday life and social interaction (Stuart, 2016, p. 280). In contrast, Li et
al. (2018) examine Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (DTES), a neighbourhood often labelled
“the poorest postal code in Canada” . Their objective is to understand how the Heart of the City
Festival fosters community identity and counters stigmatizing external narratives (Li et al., 2018,
p. 402). While both neighborhoods are framed negatively by outsiders, Stuart analyzes
adaptation under criminal justice surveillance, whereas Li et al. focus on collective cultural
production as resistance.
Researcher positionality also operates differently in each study. Stuart conducted five years of
fieldwork in Skid Row , embedding himself in a hyper-policed environment. His immersion
allows him to observe not only police interactions, but the anticipatory behaviours residents
adopt in response to constant surveillance. His position as an observer within street-level
contexts allows him access to informal social dynamics and public space management. Li et al.,
by contrast, conducted sixteen months of participant observation alongside interviews with
residents, performers, and organizers connected to the festival . Their engagement positions them
within a collaborative community setting rather than a policing dynamic. Whereas Stuart
observes residents adapting to external authority, Li et al. observe residents actively constructing
cultural meaning within a bounded celebratory space.
The key conceptual difference between the studies lies in Stuart’s use of framing and Li et al.’s
use of a local group sociological framework. Stuart develops the concept of “cop wisdom,” a
cultural frame that allows residents to interpret, anticipate, and manipulate police activity (Stuart,
2016, p. 281). Drawing from cultural sociology, he shows how criminalization shapes a shared
repertoire of evaluative schemas that structure perception and action. Residents learn to make
police behaviour “legible, predictable, and manipulable” (Stuart, 2016, p. 281). This framing
produces patterned behaviours such as strategic self-presentation and movement restriction, often
at the expense of well-being.
Li et al., however, draw on Fine’s theory of small groups and idioculture . They conceptualize
the festival as a “focused microgathering” where localized culture is produced through
interaction (Li et al., 2018, p. 403). Rather than emphasizing adaptation to authority, they
highlight collaborative meaning-making. The festival becomes an interactional arena where
participants co-construct identity and place, challenging outsider narratives. Culture, in this
framework, is not simply a response to structural control but a locally produced resource
embedded in group interaction.
Methodologically, both studies rely on participant observation, but the data environments differ
significantly. Stuart’s fieldwork unfolds in public urban space structured by surveillance and
control . His ethnography captures mundane interactions such as informal social regulation,
avoidance tactics, and movement patterns shaped by criminalization. Li et al. conduct participant
observation within a temporally bounded festival space , supplementing this with 25 interviews.
Their data emphasize narrative expression, artistic production, and the symbolic dimensions of
place-making. Stuart’s methods uncover adaptive behaviours under constraint, whereas Li et al.’s
methods reveal collaborative cultural expression.
The main findings of each study reflect these conceptual orientations. Stuart finds that cop
wisdom allows residents to reduce police scrutiny but produces collateral consequences,
including diminished social interaction and reinforced stigma (Stuart, 2016, pp. 280–282).
Survival requires behavioural restriction. Li et al., conversely, find that the festival fosters
collective identity and strengthens local culture by enabling participants to redefine place and
belonging (Li et al., 2018, p. 402). While both communities navigate stigma, Stuart highlights
constriction under surveillance and Li et al. highlight expansion through collective cultural
production.
In conclusion, both studies illustrate the explanatory power of ethnography in revealing how
marginalized communities construct meaning within unequal conditions. Stuart demonstrates
how framing operates as a cultural adaptation to criminalization, while Li et al. show how small
groups generate idioculture that resists external Othering. Together, they demonstrate that
ethnography does more than document lived experience; it reveals the interactional processes
through which identity, power, and place are continuously negotiated.
PART A – Question 2
Transferability refers to the extent to which qualitative findings may be applicable to other
contexts, based on the provision of detailed description of setting, methodology, and findings .
Unlike generalizability in quantitative research, transferability depends on thick contextual detail
that allows readers to determine whether insights may resonate elsewhere.
Stuart’s (2016) study demonstrates strong transferability because of its extensive description of
Skid Row’s policing environment and the mechanisms through which criminalization shapes
behaviour. By detailing how residents develop “cop wisdom” as a cultural frame to interpret
police conduct (Stuart, 2016, p. 281), he provides a conceptual tool that extends beyond Los
Angeles. Many urban communities subject to aggressive policing may similarly cultivate shared
interpretive schemas that guide self-presentation and movement. While the specific legal context
may vary, the structural conditions of heightened surveillance and discretionary enforcement are
recognizable across many North American cities.
Because Stuart offers thick description of daily life, police contact patterns, and adaptive
behavioural strategies, readers can assess the applicability of cop wisdom to other hyper-policed
neighbourhoods. The clarity with which he articulates both context and cultural mechanism
enhances the transferability of his findings.
PART B
Closed institutions are structured environments characterized by spatial confinement, regulation
of daily life, and restricted autonomy. Such institutions control movement, organize interaction,
and limit access to the outside world . Prisons are paradigmatic closed institutions, in which
identities are shaped by surveillance, hierarchy, and constrained social roles.
Hjørnevik and Waage (2019) examine a low-security Norwegian prison through an ethnographic
study of music therapy and everyday musicking . Rather than conceptualizing prison solely as a
site of punishment, the authors explore how musical engagement forms part of the emotional
geography of prison life (Hjørnevik & Waage, 2019, p. 455). Their objective is not to measure
program outcomes but to understand how inmates experience music as a situated social practice
(Hjørnevik & Waage, 2019, p. 454).
Drawing on the concept of musicking, which frames music as a social action rather than an
object, the authors analyze how inmates use music as a technology of self (Hjørnevik & Waage,
2019, p. 454). Within the constraints of incarceration, music becomes a medium through which
inmates perform caring, autonomous, and agentive identities. Rather than reinforcing discipline,
musicking creates relational spaces that allow for empathy-in-action (Hjørnevik & Waage, 2019,
p. 455).
The ethnographic approach is central to these insights. Because the first author occupied a dual
role as music therapist and researcher, he was embedded in daily prison routines . This
positioning enabled observation of informal musical practices beyond structured therapy
sessions. The study reveals that music shapes relationships, affects, and identity performances in
ways not easily captured through survey instruments. For example, singing in shared spaces
disrupts simplistic frontstage/backstage distinctions common in prison sociology (Hjørnevik &
Waage, 2019, p. 455). Ethnography makes visible the subtle emotional zones within the prison.
The use of ethnography thus contributes to a more nuanced understanding of prison life.
Traditional depictions of prisons emphasize aggression and emotional sterility. However, this
study demonstrates that emotional expression and identity negotiation occur within institutional
constraints. By foregrounding everyday practice rather than solely intervention outcomes, the
authors challenge monolithic portrayals of incarceration.
One challenge researchers might face conducting similar research in Canada involves
institutional access. Canadian prisons have historically been comparatively closed to independent
researchers, limiting opportunities for immersive ethnographic work . Jones et al. (2019) note
that independent prison-based research in Canada has been rare due to risk-averse correctional
ministries (p. 45). Gaining prolonged, immersive access necessary for ethnography, particularly
for participant-observation roles, would require navigating bureaucratic barriers and ethical
constraints. Additionally, incarcerated populations are vulnerable groups, heightening ethical
scrutiny and complicating researcher positioning.
Despite these challenges, Hjørnevik and Waage’s study demonstrates how ethnography within
closed institutions can illuminate emotional and relational dimensions often obscured by
structural analysis alone.
PART C (Point Form)
a) Ethical challenges
• Respect for persons: Ensuring informed consent among unhoused individuals who may
experience instability or vulnerability
• Welfare: Avoiding harm by protecting confidentiality in encampments where identity exposure
could risk stigma or policing
• Justice: Ensuring fair representation without exploiting marginalized populations
b) Role as participant observer
• Engage in sustained presence while building rapport
• Maintain reflexivity about positionality
• Avoid over-identification or role confusion
• Balance participation with systematic observation and fieldnotes
c) Ensuring voluntary consent
• Provide clear verbal explanation of study purpose
• Ongoing consent rather than one-time agreement
• Emphasize right to withdraw at any time
• Avoid coercion, particularly if informal supports are intertwined with research presence