Executive Doctor of Management
Weatherhead School of Management
EDMP 612
Participant Observation & Ethnographic Methods/Project I
Instructor: Paul Salipante
Principal Guest Instructor: Bart Morrison
Fall 2002
Inquiry, Naturalistic and Otherwise
The first year inquiry sequence focuses primarily on naturalistic inquiry. Its materials
and assignments are intended to aid participants in producing an applied research project
using ethnographic methods. This research will constitute the first portion of the
program’s Applied Research Project requirement. In addition, the first year sequence
presents an overall introduction to inquiry, comparing constructionist, qualitative and
quantitative modes of inquiry, especially in regard to their epistemological bases and
their differing framing of research questions. This introduction will serve as a foundation
for the inquiry seminars in all three years of the program. The goal of the program’s
inquiry courses is to develop practitioner-scholars, individuals engaged in practiceoriented careers who perform rigorous research that generates knowledge for guiding
practice.
It is commonly held that scientific knowledge can usefully inform private and public
action. To personally contribute to improved action through inquiry and writing requires
knowledge about knowledge. What are the premises, strengths, and limitations of
different ways of knowing? During this century Western philosophy of science has
staged a protracted debate over whether the world is knowable and, if so, in what ways.
At one pole of the debate is positivism, which holds that the causes of phenomena can be
discerned. At the opposite pole is relativism, claiming that knowledge cannot be
definitive. Broadly speaking, the program’s inquiry courses start closer to the relativist
pole and gradually move toward the positivist pole. In the first year inquiry sequence,
we will explore methods that rest upon the premise that humans construct and interpret
their realities, a premise associated with the social construction of reality paradigm. We
will utilize interpretive methods that are relatively unstructured yet rigorous, and rely
upon naturalistic data that can be observed and gathered from subjects’ personal accounts
of experiences. The second year inquiry sequence will emphasize more structured
qualitative approaches, while the third year sequence will focus on the quantitative
approaches of modern empiricism.
Each of these three modes of inquiry -- quantitative, structured qualitative, and
interpretive -- relies on differing premises, techniques, and criteria for generating and
assessing knowledge. These are all too easily ignored when their products find
expression in the information and arguments used to formulate organizational and public
policy. Our task will be to gain sufficient understanding of the epistemological
D:\106741962.doc
1
foundations and research methods of these three modes, and especially of interpretive
inquiry, that we can critically evaluate information that they produce.
EDMP 612 – Fall Semester
The first semester course involves a first participant observation project (a “miniethnography”), experience with phenomenological interviewing, and naturalistic data
analysis. A foundation for these active research efforts is built through discussion of
qualitative and constructionist approaches to inquiry. Throughout the semester
participants prepare for their own first year ethnographic research project, which will be
conducted during the second semester, by formulating their long-term research interests
and developing a formal research proposal for the spring semester project. In so doing,
participants build a knowledge base of existing literature in their chosen research area
and begin to explore relationships with potential faculty advisors.
Overall goals
To develop skills of observation, analysis and interpretation, and written
presentation, and to contribute to each participant’s self-awareness as a scholar.
To formulate personal research interests and questions that can be pursued in the
program and acquire an appreciation of the value of differing modes of inquiry for
pursuing those interests.
Sub-goals
To gain experience with the complete cycle of empirical inquiry, from initial
design to data collection to analysis to conceptualization to implications for
application, and to scholarly presentation.
To explore the nature of practitioner-scholarship, and to understand the premises,
limitations and particular strengths of each of several modes of inquiry as they
pertain to the pursuit of such scholarship.
To generate a research proposal for the second semester project, by framing one’s
applied research interests, generating research questions and designing a
participant-observation study.
To confront the challenges facing practitioner-scholars in their efforts to generate
knowledge for guiding practical social and organizational action.
In order to accomplish these goals, the seminar’s readings and discussions will
concentrate primarily upon the philosophies and methodologies of ethnographic inquiry.
D:\106741962.doc
2
Types of Readings
The seminar draws on three types of readings. Research reports represent the product of
a mode of inquiry, in the form of individual research studies, or syntheses and
commentaries of collected research. Some of these pieces will be found in the two
integrative seminars (Collective Action; Culture and World Politics) being offered this
semester. Methodological and epistemological commentaries, critiques, and debates
provide challenging questions about the nature of knowledge in human studies, guiding
seminar dialogues about the modes of inquiry illustrated in the research reports and their
implications for practitioner-scholarship. Methodological texts, of which the majority
will deal with ethnographic methods, explain a particular method, criteria for judging
research using the method, and specifics for performing research using the method.
These texts provide criteria for assessing research reports, make more meaningful the
epistemological critiques, and provide enough details of methods to aid participants in the
production of their own ethnographies this semester and in making future methodological
choices that fit their experience, skills, and viewpoint.
Research Projects
The first semester inquiry course will guide participants through three research-related
projects:
1) a short ethnography
2) phenomenological interviews
3) a research proposal. For the first of these, participants will engage in direct
fieldwork, creating field notes from direct observation, then analyzing these to
develop an interpretation. This project is described in the accompanying
document titled “Producing a Mini-Ethnography”
D:\106741962.doc
3
SEMINAR SESSIONS
Residency 1 The Nature of Qualitative Research and Participant Observation, and
August 21-24
Challenges to the Quantitative Treatment of Man
In the EDM Program we are concerned with applied, integrative research -- inquiry that
can be applied to social and organizational problems and that integrates various bodies of
knowledge with one’s own field research. In this first session of the first inquiry seminar,
we will consider a fundamental social problem -- the societal treatment of economic and
ethnic differences across groups. Despite our concern with research that can be applied,
our intent at this point is not to propose ameliorations and remedies but, rather, to
examine how the attempts to measure differences (primarily in IQ) across groups has
fallen short of providing effective guidance for social policy, and how more interpretive
understandings of less privileged populations can inform that policy. And, to begin to
build your own personal skills in inquiry, you are beginning your first field research
project, the micro-ethnography assignment described in the accompanying “Producing a
Mini-Ethnography” document.
Each of the readings for this residency is listed below. I suggest that you start by reading
the first chapter of Whyte’s classic ethnography, Street Corner Society. Ponder how
Whyte presents his material and consider whether this is description, theory, or some
combination of the two. Then, read the section of his autobiographical Appendix, which
describes how he carried out this first foray into participant observation. Then you can
return to read his second chapter. Read the rest of the ethnography more rapidly, then
return and read carefully the remainder of the Appendix. This appendix is valuable in
laying bare the trials and tribulations of learning ethnography, an experience that you will
be sharing as you pursue your first ethnographic assignment. Note that Whyte’s book
also provides insight into the societal treatment of group/ethnic differences. Return to his
claims about how the broader society treats people in slums after you have completed the
second set of readings for this residency.
While Whyte gets down and dirty regarding the production of ethnography, the next two
readings provide more measured insights into the purposes and methods of ethnography.
It is strongly recommended that you read through these before engaging in your written
assignments for the first residency. Katherine Dettwyler’s book, Dancing with Skeletons,
can guide your written self-reflections, as her book has been both criticized and praised
(depending on the epistemological stance of the commentator) for its highly personal and
reflective treatment of her research experiences. People learn as much about themselves
as about others when they engage in participant observation. You are encouraged to see
in Dettwyler’s work (and in Whyte’s) how ethnography can liberate the researcher, and
readers, by opening them to culture shock and cultural differences. Note the strong
connection of this text with this residency’s readings on “insiders” and “outsiders” in the
Culture and World Politics seminar.
Having read these two ethnographies, you can turn to two texts that describe the
ethnographic research process. While nominally dealing with the writing of ethnographic
D:\106741962.doc
4
fieldnotes, Emerson, Fretz and Shaw provide a broad introduction to an interpretive
approach to ethnography that emphasizes direct observation. This text should provide
you with further insight into the procedures that Whyte and Dettwyler followed to
produce their ethnographies. Read the first four chapters to gain not only a general
understanding of observational data collection but also to guide you in your own data
collection for the first residency’s fieldwork assignment. In some contrast to Emerson et
al., James Spradley emphasizes the interviews that often accompany observational
studies. An initial reading of this book will alert you to interviewing and analysis tasks
that you will pursue later in the semester. Note that both of these texts emphasize that
ethnography seeks to understand the realities and meanings of the participants being
observed and interviewed. Your task will, similarly, be to understand the meanings and
realities of those you observe, setting aside your own preconceptions and striving to
avoid premature interpretations that proceed more from your own background than from
the realities of those you are studying.
The four readings noted above provide you with a solid base from which you can
proceed, as a novice, with your first ethnographic fieldwork at McDonalds.
Bashar Nejdawi wrote our fifth reading as his mini-ethnography last fall. His work gives
you an idea of what you can hope to produce in your own mini-ethnography. Note
Bashar’s rich descriptions, possible because of the detailed footnotes that he took.
Analysis of these produced interesting insights from a setting that we normally take-forgranted.
Qualitative research accounts, when read, often seem story-like and give the appearance
of being easily produced. The reflections of Whyte and Dettwyler and your own initial
field experiences at McDonalds, indicate the reality: Qualitative research is difficult.
John Van Maanen’s collection of articles in Qualitative Methodology makes more
explicit the many challenges and choices facing the qualitative researcher. We will read
several of these articles in the coming months. For now, Van Maanen’s introduction
presents a case for researchers’ making greater use of interpretive and qualitative
methods in organizational studies, which have come to be dominated by quantitative
inquiry.
In a somewhat similar vein, Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man points to some
of the flawed research carried out in the name of scientific, quantitative inquiry. This
piece brings us full circle to the issues of poverty explored by Whyte on the North End’s
streetcorners, but the methodology is entirely different. Gould shows that quantitative
inquiry has addressed the phenomenon of observed differences across groups, often
attempting to establish that there are scientifically measurable differences across ethnic
groups that “explain” differential economic attainments and life outcomes. Conclusions
from such scientific inquiry can greatly affect the broadest of private and public policies.
They influence our explanations and debates about the sources and proper treatment of
individual and collective differences in society. A small but important part of this debate
rests on inquiry into intelligence, and it is this inquiry that we will consider. The issues
raised by Gould’s analyses are many, including the presence in quantitative work of the
D:\106741962.doc
5
type of researcher subjectivity for which interpretive work is often attacked, and the role
that academic (sub)disciplines play in framing research issues in ways that suit their
theories and methods. Lest we conclude that the types of researcher flaws presented by
Gould have been successfully purged by modern research methods and standards, note
that Gould’s book pre-dated the “Bell Curve” debate, in which two psychometricians
claimed that their data forced them to conclude that ethnic differences in IQ pre-destined
lower economic attainment for African-Americans. It appears that there are no “magic
bullet” methods of research that ensure arriving at uncontestable scientific truths. Rather,
no matter the mode of inquiry used, progress in producing knowledge seems to rest
primarily on researcher integrity, rigor, and open-minded curiosity, and on critical
dialogue (and Gould-like debunking) in the scholarly community.
Readings for Residency 1:
1. Wm. Foote Whyte (1943, 1955). Street Corner Society. University of Chicago
Press. Read the Appendix in parallel with the text. Read at least half of the book,
enough to ponder how Whyte describes the scene in some chapters, then analyzes
it in others.
2. Katherine Dettwyler (1993). Dancing Skeletons: Life and Death in West Africa.
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
3. Robert M. Emerson, Rachel I. Fretz, & Linda L. Shaw (1995). Writing
Ethnographic Fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press. Read Ch. 1 to 4.
4. James Spradley (1979), The Ethnographic Interview. San Diego, CA., Harcourt
Brace and Janovich.
5. Bashar Nejdawi, mini-ethnography of McDonalds, Fall, 2000.
6. Stephen Jay Gould. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. NY: W.W. Norton.
Chapters 1, 5, 7, Epilogue.
7. John Van Maanen (ed.) (1983). Qualitative Methodology. Sage Publications.
Read p. 7 and “Reclaiming Qualitative Methods for Organizational Research: A
Preface,” 9-18.
Fieldwork & Written Assignment
(See accompanying document, “Producing a Mini-Ethnography”):
a. Field notes on McDonalds observations.
b. Own background, positionality, and research interests.
D:\106741962.doc
6
Residency 2
Sept. 13-14
Presenting and Interpreting Naturalistic Data, and
Thick Description and other Paradigms of Ethnography
This residency’s readings extend our introduction to ethnography. Since they can guide
your mini-ethnography data collection and analysis, read first the readings by Emerson, et
al., and Lincoln & Guba. These can aid you, respectively, in seeking to ascertain the
meanings of those whom you are observing and in beginning to formally analyze your
data for categories and themes. While you are proceeding with your own fieldwork, read
the remaining readings.
Sanday’s overview of ethnography makes highly explicit a suspicion that you may have
had by now -- namely, that there is no single view of what constitutes ethnography. In
her piece, note especially the differing intents of the various schools of ethnography, and
the differing degrees to which specifiable and structured methods define the quality of a
piece of ethnography. The classic chapter by Clifford Geertz, explaining his thinking on
pursuing a semiotic style of ethnography, discusses the nature of thick description. The
aim of thickly describing the native view is consistent with the methods of ethnography
proposed by Emerson et al.
Donald Roy’s humorous ethnography on passing time in a monotonous job is on the
syllabus not (merely) as a respite but as an excellent example of rigorous data collection
and engaging presentation. Unlike Whyte’s tome, this piece is of article length and may
serve to provide guidance in how you can present description and interpretation. Note the
author’s style and consider how the writing engages you as a reader, connecting the
reader with the specific context and those phenomena that Roy encountered and selected
for presentation. Roy has carefully crafted his narrative to build the (sub)themes that
emerged from his inductive analyses. Into which of Sanday’s categories would you place
this piece?
The EDM Program emphasizes applied research and practitioner-scholarship, which
Aram & Salipante attempt to describe in the final reading of this residency. What issues
does the pursuit of practitioner-scholarship raise for you personally, given your research
interests? Even as you work on the prescribed McDonalds mini-ethnography, write a one
page memo (see “Written Assignments,” below) regarding your current thinking on the
research questions that you would like to pursue with this year’s research project
requirement. On what researchable issues are you curious and intending to generate and
disseminate knowledge, and to whom?
Readings for Residency 2
1. Emerson, et al. Ch. 5 & 6 (Pursuing Members’ Meanings; Processing Fieldnotes:
Coding and Memoing).
2. Yvonna S. Lincoln & Egon G. Guba (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE
Publications. (Xerox copy) Ch. 12 (Processing Naturalistically Obtained Data).
D:\106741962.doc
7
3. Concentrate on the constant comparison method of Glaser & Strauss regarding the
use of discrepant data for guiding theory development. For use in your miniethnography note their explicit portrayal of methods for categorizing.
4. Peggy Reeves Sanday (1983). The ethnographic paradigm(s), 19-36, in John Van
Maanen (ed.), Qualitative Methodology. Sage Publications.
5. Clifford Geertz (1973). Thick description: Towards an interpretive view of
culture, in Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books. (Xerox
copy.)
6. Donald Roy (1959). ‘Banana Time,’ job satisfaction, and informal interaction.
Human Organization, 18(4), 151-168. (Xerox copy.) (Note: Bring your own
bananas to the residency – mine are not to be stolen!)
7. John Aram & Paul Salipante (2000). Applied research in management: Criteria
for management educators and for practitioner-scholars. (Xerox copy.) Revised
version of paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of
Management, August, 2000.
Written assignments
Draft of an analysis section of mini-ethnography, per “Producing a MiniEthnography.”
One page rumination on potential research topics for program and first year.
Residency 3
Oct. 4-5
The Author’s Author-ity: Constructing (Alternative) Interpretations
The challenge for this residency, a very significant one, is to consider the relationship of
description to analysis, of data to inductively-derived interpretations. There is no simple,
mechanical way to arrive at interpretations in ethnography, yet there are better and worse
analyses. The starting point for successful analysis is to “know your rat” (to borrow an
analogy from the animal psychology lab). Become intimately familiar with your data,
your field observation materials, and allow them to inform your thinking. Formally
categorizing and coding field data are basic to ethnographic analyses, and the piece by
LeCompte and Preissle provides guidance (similar to that of Emerson, et al. and Lincoln
& Guba from the second residency) on how to approach these tasks. As you formally
analyze your own data, rely on whichever of these pieces provides you the best guidance.
The assigned chapter from Emerson, et al. on writing an ethnography indicates that
analytical thinking and choice continues even as the ethnography is being written, and
that careful selection and editing of excerpts is key to showing the reader that which
convinced you about the themes in your data. The chapter by LeCompte and Preissle, in
its later sections, takes analysis to another level -- namely, the problem of connecting
one’s analyses and interpretations with broader discussions in the scholarly literature.
This requires the development of concepts that have the potential to travel to other
D:\106741962.doc
8
contexts than that directly studied by the ethnographer; in effect, the author “climbs the
ladder of abstraction”, constructing from field data emergent themes that abstract from
the situation and can be connected to ideas emerging from other studies in other contexts.
Connecting your interpretations with those extant in the literature is a task that you are
not pursuing for the mini-ethnography, but you will in your spring project.
The two ethnographies for this residency – by Wolf and Theophane & Curtis – not only
provide ideas on how to organize and present your data and analyses, they also deal in a
significant fashion with reflexivity. This, too, should be a component of your written
mini-ethnography. Many years after having engaged in anthropological fieldwork,
Margery Wolf selectively presents and interprets her data in light of contemporary issues.
She ponders the connection of herself with her research associate, the villagers she
studied and, more broadly, the impact of anthropological observers on the cultures that
they examine. Applying the perspective of feminism, one that she did not possess at the
time of data collection, she discusses the role and impact of anthropology. To trace the
evolution of her thought, and to show how a variety of interpretations can be provided
from the same data, she tells her tale three times. As you construct the final version of
your own mini-ethnography, note from the second telling of her tale that rich and
systematically collected field notes can be organized into coherent description. Also,
note the value of keeping a personal journal, so that reflections bearing on your eventual
interpretations can be produced during and at the conclusion of your study. You should
strive to include such reflections in your mini-ethnography.
Like Whyte and Wolf, Theophano & Curtis help us understand particular personal
challenges faced in ethnography by reflecting on their experiences as a team of
ethnographic investigators. You might want to explore a team collaboration for this
semester’s mini-ethnography. Whether you do or not, note the importance of the
interaction between the researcher and the research subjects (participants). The
researcher becomes an additional element of the social system being observed, so
participant behavior can change. Furthermore, who the particular researcher is matters in
terms of how people act and what is expressed. What does this say about ethnographic
and, more broadly, qualitative inquiry? Can we apply the same standards of validity that
we do to quantitative inquiry? What is implied by the fact that ethnographers can tell two
or three different tales from the same study? More to the point of ethnography itself,
what do the reflections of ethnographers such as Whyte, Wolf, and Theophano & Curtis
indicate regarding the importance of an ethnographic researcher’s skill and integrity?
Does reflexivity provide a way for the ethnographer to produce a better study?
It is important for this residency’s learning to ponder what you have learned about
yourself from doing this inquiry. Similar to Dettwyler in Dancing with Skeletons,
consider the personal perspective that you have brought to your field observations and
interpretations. How has this perspective shaped your interpretations? On the other side
of the coin, what has this study revealed to you about yourself? And, regarding your
mini-ethnography as a piece of applied anthropology/ethnography, how might a study
such as yours be applied to organizations such as McDonalds, to communities, and to
people such as yourself? These questions represent the main themes that we will pursue
D:\106741962.doc
9
this residency concerning ethnography and your development as an ethnographic
researcher.
Finally, engage in a quick reading of the piece by Michael Piore in the Van Maanen
reader. Note how even economists, usually the most deductive of thinkers, benefit from
attending to Geertz’ “native view”, to the “theories-in-use” and operating models of
practitioners. This piece should spur us to consider the complementarities possible in
practitioner-scholarship between naturalistic/interpretive inquiry and quantitative
research.
Readings for Residency 3:
1. Emerson, et al. (1995), Chapters 7 and 8 (Writing an Ethnography; Conclusion).
2. Margaret D. LeCompte & Judith Preissle (1993). Analysis and interpretation of
qualitative data, Ch. 7 in Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational
Research (2nd ed.), Academic Press. (Xerox copy.)
3. Margery Wolf. (1992). A Thrice-Told Tale: Feminism, Postmodernism, and
Ethnographic Responsibility. Stanford University Press.
4. Janet Theophano & Karen Curtis (1996). “Reflections on a Tale Told Twice,” in
Annette Lareau & Jeffrey Shultz (eds), Journeys through Ethnography: Realistic
Accounts of Fieldwork. Westview Press/Harper Collins, 149-176.
5. Michael J. Piore, Qualitative research techniques in economics, in John Van
Maanen, Qualitative Methodology.
Assignment: Mini-ethnography on McDonalds, per “Producing a Mini-Ethnography”.
Residency 4
Oct. 25-26
Phenomenological Interviewing, and
The Nature of Research Proposals
In this residency and the next, we will engage with Bart Morrison concerning the
collection and analysis of data from phenomenological interviews. Your assignments
will provide you with first-hand experience on methods and issues raised by Stenar Kvale
in his book. (Recall our reading in the first residency of Spradley’s book on the
ethnographic interview.)
Also at this residency we will start more formally with the identification of your spring
project. We will consider the nature and purpose of research proposals, drawing on
Joseph Maxwell’s discussions. Come to the residency prepared with thoughts on your
long-term research interests and some ideas for expressing those in your spring
ethnographic research project. We will take time to meet in small groups to further
explore and shape these ideas.
D:\106741962.doc
10
The ethnographies by Melville Dalton and Karen Golden-Biddle & Hayagreeva Rao are
two rare examples of ethnographic inquiry into top management functioning. These
pieces may provide ideas for your own practitioner-scholarship, drawing on settings and
experiences with which you are somewhat familiar and to which you might gain access.
However, doing research in settings in which one has other roles, and a position of
authority, raises a number of ethical issues regarding the protection of the research’s
subjects. Read carefully the chapter in LeCompte and Schensul regarding human
subjects’ issues. Similarly, read the special materials on such issues produced by Bart
Morrison and based on experience of previous classes with their first year ethnography
projects. In light of contemporary concerns for human subjects, how might Dalton’s
research be done today?
Readings for Residency 4:
1. Steinar Kvale (1966). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research
Interviewing. Sage Publications. Selected chapters to be assigned.
2. Joseph A. Maxwell (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive
Approach. Sage Publications. Read Chapters 1 through 4.
3. Margaret LeCompte & Jean Schensul (1999). Designing and Conducting
Ethnographic Research (Ethnographers Toolkit, Vol. 1). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta
Mira Press/Sage Publications. Read Chapter 9, Ethical treatment of research
participants.
4. Melville Dalton (1959). Men Who Manage: Fusions of Feeling and Theory in
Administration. Wiley. Foreward, Preface, Ch. 1 (Introduction) and Ch. 3
(Power Struggles in the Line), v-xi, 1-7, and 18-70. (Xerox copy)
5. Golden-Biddle, K. and Rao, H. (1997) “Breaches in the Boardroom:
Organizational Identity and Conflicts of Commitment in a Nonprofit
Organization,” Organizational Science, Vol. 8 No. 6 593-611.
6. CWRU/EDM guidelines for human subjects issues in ethnographic inquiry,
generated by Bart Morrison.
Assignments:
Phenomenological interviewing and data analysis (for Bart Morrison).
A paragraph on one or two potential research issues and settings for your spring
project.
Residency 5
Nov. 16-17
Analyzing Interview Data, and
Constructing and Deconstructing Social Realities
D:\106741962.doc
11
At this residency we will continue our work with Bart Morrison concerning
phenomenological interviewing. Combined with the observationally-based miniethnography that you produced earlier this semester, this work will provide you with
baseline skills for conducting both participant observation and phenomenological
interviewing as parts of your own ethnographic work next semester. Continue to develop
your ideas regarding that project, seeking out existing literature and the views of
practitioners concerning the “knowledge gap” that your research might address. Again,
our intent is to discuss, critique and build your emerging research questions and designs
in small groups.
To connect with Mohan’s and Eileen’s seminars, we will also give explicit consideration
this residency to the social construction of reality paradigm. Garfinkel’s seminal study of
trust in social relationships and Goffman’s study of “face-work” reveal that groups and
societies have constructed a web of largely unnoticed social rules that regulate behavior.
Garfinkel and Goffman are explicitly concerned with the manner in which society
produces and reproduces social order through the routine, mundane, taken-for-granted
interactions in which members engage. This focus closely matches the kinds of
understandings that ethnography can achieve regarding the hidden significance of
everyday interactions, in terms of groups constructing their senses of reality. McCloskey
(a Chicago economist who has somehow moved into social constructionism) claims that
economics is characterized by story-telling and the use of metaphor, in an attempt to be
relevant and convincing. McCloskey introduces the concept of the “rhetorical tetrad” to
identify weaknesses in published research, and you should be able to use this framework
to critique your own and others’ scholarly writing. In this vein, rhetoric is seen as
integral to inquiry. One consequence is that the postmodern paradigm is often described
as the “rhetorical turn” in inquiry. This turn is evident in Folbre & Harmann’s
deconstruction of two sets of theories in economics, showing the artificially constructed
nature of theory in economists’ communities of practice. In a sense, the argument is that
scientific reality is whatever a community of academics chooses to construct.
Readings for Residency 5:
1. Steinar Kvale (1966). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research
Interviewing. Sage Publications. Selected chapters to be assigned.
2. Joseph A. Maxwell (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive
Approach. Sage Publications. Read the remaining chapters.
3. Harold Garfinkel. A conception of, and experiments with, ‘trust’ as a condition of
stable concerted actions, pp. 187-238 in O.J. Harvey (ed.), Motivation and Social
Interaction. NY: Ronald Press Co., 1963. (Xerox copy.)
4. E. Goffman (1967). Interaction Ritual. Pantheon. Introduction. Chapter One (On
Face-work), 1-45 (Xerox copy)
D:\106741962.doc
12
5. D.N. McCloskey. (1990). If You’re So Smart: The Narrative of Economic
Expertise. University of Chicago Press. Preface, Introduction, Ch. 1, 2, 4.
(optional: Ch. 11)
6. Nancy Folbre & Heidi Hartmann (1988). The rhetoric of self-interest: Ideology
and gender in economic theory,” in Arjo Klamer, D. McCloskey, and R. Solow
(eds), The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric, Cambridge University Press,
184-203. (Provided in Xerox form.)
Assignments:
a) Phenomenological interviewing and data analysis (for Bart Morrison).
b) Two-page summary of research proposal, including proposed approach to
human subjects issues.
Residency 6
Dec. 7-8
Formulation of Proposal for the Spring Research Project
Our nearly exclusive focus this residency is upon the completed research proposals that
you have generated. We will engage in a “mini-conference” (with “parallel” sessions to
provide more air-time for each presentation) at which each person will present her/his
proposal and receive further suggestions from attendees. The piece by Henry Mintzberg
may spur some further thinking regarding the practitioner-scholar nature of your intended
work.
Readings for Residency 6:
1. Maxwell, review entire book, using it to identify needed sections of your proposal
and proper framing of your research questions.
2. Example of a research proposal from a previous class.
3. Henry Mintzberg, An emerging strategy of direct research, pp. 105-116 in John
Van Maanen, Qualitative Methodology.
Assignment: Research Proposal, including draft of human subjects’ protocol on CWRU
form.
D:\106741962.doc
13