Okely 'Thinking through fieldwork'

Okely (1994) "Thinking through fieldwork" in Bryman and Burgess (edit.) Analysing Qualitative Data London: Routledge

This paper discusses Okely's ethnographic research into Gypsies.
Very interesting analysis of differences between ethnography and sociological research methods:

• Different contexts/backgrounds (anthrop studies non-western cultures; socioc studies western society)
• For ethnography, although readings essential, it can be "cast aside like so much ballast", because ethnographers must be disponible (capable and prepared to have their opinions 'made over' at any time).
• The data collection and presentation in anthrop and ethnography are intimatly related (the same?). Not so in socioc studies.

Everything is admissible as evidence for the ethnographer, for whom the feildnotes during the write up act solely as triggers. The experience of writing up should be like Poust in Le Recherche du temps perdu. So no constraint to creatuive/interpritive turbulance: no need to worry about notions of detachment/contanination.

Writing up involves the receptivness to the emergence of key themes, and althought in a lot of ethnography, some staple themes normally are mentioned (kinship, eceomomy, religion etc) there is no need for these to be arrived at. Passages are assigned to topic, but there is no need for passages to be constrained to one topic.

Unraveling the inteligability of group functions is as much a part of ethnography's method as is ravelling it: so notice inconsistency, counter examples and things that dont make much sense. The wrter must be sensitive to serendipidous conections and themes.