Theory and Contrastive Explanation in Ethnography

Abstract

We propose three interlinked ways that theory helps researchers build causal claims from ethnographic research. First, theory guides the casing and re-casing of a topic of study. Second, theoretical work helps craft a clear causal question via the construction of a contrast space of the topic of investigation. Third, the researcher uses theory to identify social mechanisms that condense causal accounts. We show how each step can accommodate the everyday meanings typically central to ethnographic research's contributions. This tripartite role for theory thus preserves ethnography's traditionally recognized strength in interpretive validity, while realizing ethnography's potential for offering causal, and partly generalizable, accounts that can engage the wider sociological discipline. The discussion brings ethnographic research into conversation with recent debates on the role of mechanisms, comparative and counterfactual thinking in causal accounts. We illustrate and defend our argument for theory in ethnography with an extensive analysis of a contemporary ethnographic monograph along with briefer attention to parallel uses of theory in two other ethnographic studies.

Adopting a Cloak of Incompetence: Impression Management Techniques for Feigning Lesser Selves

“…The formal ethnographer occupies “the role of stranger in the field and skeptic at the desk,” committed to “generalizations among groups” (Fine 2019b:829). Such an approach conceptualizes the ethnographic “explanandum as a ubiquitous phenomenon,” so audiences may “‘test’ [the] analysis on their own experiences, without a travel allowance, without negotiating access, without following any demanding protocol” (Katz 2015:124–25), and researchers may surmount the “mental divides” (Zerubavel 2007:134) that separate their respective areas of sociological work, casing and recasing particular empirical instances as general theoretical concerns for communities of inquiry (Lichterman and Reed 2015). Formal ethnographers recognize that communities of inquiry may need to be constructed, so they might know they exist and become aware of what research objects they share (Lichterman and Reed 2015:591).…”

From Culture to Claimsmaking

“…We navigated the two kinds of data toward a theoretical argument through a comparative, theoretically driven version of analytic induction (Katz 2001; Lichterman and Reed 2015). We compared coded documents from CPC hearings and coalition meetings with field note data on style and claims.…”

“…They can initiate substantial theoretical improvement. Sometimes the “framework” itself must be synthesized from disparate works (Lichterman and Reed 2015).…”

Handling missing data in numeric analyses

“…Compared to statistical comparative analysis, the deductive imperative and the search for causality are downplayed, albeit still central, and complexity is emphasised (Ciccia, 2016;Ragin, 1987;Wagemann & Schneider, 2010). There is also an ongoing discussion on how qualitative studies and case studies can, and in fact often do, aim for explanation, even when this aim is not explicitly stated (Goertz & Mahoney, 2012;Lichterman & Ariail Reed, 2015, cf. Timmermans & Tavory 2012.…”