bryman, alan_social reseach methods4325423.pdf

8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf

1/32

Social

Research

etho s

lan ryman

t ir ition

OX OR

UN V RS TY PR SS


2/32

OX OR

UNIVBRSITY PIlIlSS

Great Clarendon Street, Orlord o 60P

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford .

It furthers the University s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,

and education by publishing worldwide in

Oxford New York

Auckland Cape Town

Dar

es

Salaam

Hong Kong Karachi

Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi

New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto

With offices in

A rg en ti na A ustria Brazil Chile Czech R ep ub li c Fra nc e G re ec e

Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore

South Korea Swi tz erla nd Tha il an d Turke y U krai ne V ie ma rn

Oxford is a registered trade

mark

of Oxford University Press

in the

UK

and in certain other countries

Published in the United States

by Oxford UniversityPress Inc., New York

AJan Bryman

2008

The moral rights of the

author

have been asserted

Database right Oxford UniversityPress maker)

First edition 200 1

Second edition

2004

Thisedition

2008

All rights reserved. No parr of this publication may

be

reproduced ,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,

without the priorpermission in

writing

of Oxford University Press,

or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms

agreed

with the appropriate

reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerningreproduction

outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,

Oxford UniversityPress, at the address above

You must no t circulate this book in any other binding or cover

and you must impose the

same

condition on any acquirer

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Data available

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Data

available

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bryman, Alan.

Social research methods / Alan Bryman 3rd ed,

p.em.

Text accompanied by a companion web site .

ISBN-13: 978 0 19 920295 9

Social sciences Research 2. Social sciences Methodology I. Title .

H62 B7872008

300 72 dc22

2008003361

Typeset by Graphicraft Limited, Hong Kong

Printed in Italy

on acid-free

paper

by

LE.G.O.

S.p.A . . Lavis TN)

ISBN978 0 19 920295 9

1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2


3/32

riting

soci l

rese rch

h pteroutline

Introduction

Writing up your research 662

Start early 662

Be persuasive 662

Get feedback 663

Avoid sexist racist and disablist language 663

Structure your writing 663

Writing up quantitative qualitative

nd

mixed

methods rese r h

668

Writingup quantitative research 669

Writing up qualitative research 672

Writing up mixed methods research 675

Postmodernism

nd

its implications for writing 679

Writfng

ethnogr phy

684

Experiential authority 685

Typical forms 685

The native s point of view 685

Interpretative omnipotence 686

Checklist

686

Keypoints

688

Questions for review


4/32

e

-

Writing up social research

bapter

gui

Itis easy to forget

that

one of

the

main stages in any research project. regardless of its size, is

that

it has

to be w ri tt en up. Not only is this how you will convey your findings. but being aware of the significance

of writing iscrucial. because your audience must be persuaded about the credibility and importance of

your research. This chapter presents some of the characteristics of the writing-up of social research.

The chapter explores:

why writing. and especially good writing. isimportant to social research;

using examples. how quantitative and qualitative research are composed;

the influence and implications of postmodernism for writing;

key issues raised by discussions about the writing of

ethnography.

an area in which discuss ions about

writing have been especially prominent.

ntroduction

The aim of this chapter is to e xa mi ne s om e of the strat

egies that are employed in writing up social research. Initi

lly we will explore the question of whether quantitative

and qualitative research reveal divergent approaches , s

we willsee, the similaritiesare frequently more striking and

apparent than the differences. However, the main point

of this chapter is

to

extract some principles of good prac

tice that can be developed an d i nc or po ra te d into y ou r

own writing. This is an

important

issue, since many peo

pIefind writing up research more difficult than carrying it

out. On the

other

hand,

many

people treat the writing-up

stage as relatively unproblematic. But nomatter howwell

research is conducted, others

that

is, your readers) have

to

be

convinced about the credibility of the knowledge

claims you are ma kin g. Good w ri tin g is th ere fo re very

much to do with developingyour style so that it is persu -

siveand convincing Flat, lifeless , uncertain writing does

not

have the power to persuade and convince.

In

explor

ing these issues, I will touch on rhetorical strategies in the

wr itin g of social r es ea rc h see T hin kin g d ee pl y 27 .2).

As Atkinson 1990; 2) has o bs er ve d in relation to social

research, theconventions of text and rhetoric are among

the

ways

in w hi ch rea lity is constructed This chapter

will review some of the ways in which social r es ea rc h is

written

up in a

way

that

will

provide some basic ideas

about structuring y ou r own w ri tt en work you have to

produce something like a dissertation.

Q

y

concept

27

hat is rhetori

The study of rhetoric isfundamentally concerned with the ways in which attempts to convince or persuade

an audience are formulated. We often encounter the term in a negative context, such as mere rhetoric or the

opposition of rhetoric and reality . However, rhetoric is an essential ingredient ofwriting, because when we

write our aim is to convince others about the credibility of our knowledge claims.To suggest thaI rhetoric

should somehow be suppressed makes littlesense. since it isin fact a basic feature ofwriting The examination

of rhetorical strategies in written texts based on socialresearch isconcerned withthe identificationofthe

techniques inthose texts that are designed to convince and persuade.


5/32

66 ritin up

social research

Writing

up

your research

Itis

easy

to

neglect

th e

writing stage of

yourworkbecause

of th e difficulties

that

you often encounter in getting your

research

under

way. But-obvious

though

this

point

is

- y o u r dissertation ha s to be written. Your findings

m us t be c on ve ye d to an audience something that all of

us who carry out r es ear ch have to face.

Th e

first bi t of

advice is . . .

tart early

It is easy to take the view

that

the writing-up of your

research findings is

something

that

you

ca n

think

about

afteryou have collected

an d

analysed your

data.

There is,

of c our se , a g ra in of truth in this view, in that you could

hardly write up your findings until you know

what

they

are, which issomething that you can know onlyonce you

have gathered

an d

analysed

your dat a.

However, there

are good reasons for beginning writing early on, since you

might want to start thinking about such issues as ho w

best

to

present and

justify

th e

research questions

that

are driv_

ing your research or ho w

structure the theoretical and

research literature that will have been used to frame Your

research questions. Students often tend

underestimate

the tim e

that

it will t ak e to write up

their

research, soit is

a

good

idea to a ll ow pl ent y of time for this , espedally if

you ar e expecting your supervisor to read and omment

on an early draft, since you will need to allow him or her a

reasonable amount of t im e for this. A further reason hy

it is advisable

begin writing earlier

rather

than later is

an entirely practical one: many people find it difficult to

ge t s ta rt ed a nd

employ probably unwittingly) procrasti

nation

strategies

to pu t

off th e inevitable. This tendency

ca n result in the w ri ti ng b ei ng left u nt il the last minute

an d consequently rushed. Writing under this kind ofpres

sure is

no t

i deal . How you represent

your

findings and

conclusions is a crucial

stage

in the r esearch process. If

you do no t provide a convincing account of your research,

yo u w ll no t do justice to it.

f @\

f : i ~ 1

tudent

experien e

Writing

up

is

difficult

Several of the students mentioned that they found writing up difficult.Gareth Matthews comments that

he found this stage the most difficult . Isabella Robbins admits that writing th e chapters presenting her

findings was

t he

most difficult task of

th e

Ph.D. process . Having enough time for writing up isa common

refrain in their questionnaires. Sarah Hanson s dvi e is:

w

The only problem with a writing project ofthis size istime. As it isalwaysagainst you start early.and be

organized, do one thing at a time. Work chronologically. Lecturers and markers liketo see that you have

gone on a journey of exploration into an interesting world and at the end have come out with something

worthwhile that has changed your thinking and will hopefully challenge theirs.

To readmoreabout

Gareth s Isabella s

and Sarah s research

experiences.

goto the

Online

Resource

Centre thataccompanies thisbookat http: www oxfordtextbooks co uk orc brymansrm3el

e persuasive

This point iscrucial. Writing up your research is no t sim

ply a matter of reporting your findings

an d

drawing

some

conclusions. Writing up

your

research will contain many

other features, such as referring

the literature on which

you drew, explaining

ho w

you did

your

research, and out

lining ho w you conducted your analysis. But above all,


6/32

yoUmust be persuasive. This

means

that you

must

con

vince

your readers

of

th e

credibility

of your

conclusions.

Sim ly saying this is

what

I found;

isn t

it interesting is

not

enough.

You

must

persuade your readers that your

findings

an d

conclusion

ar e

significant

a nd t ha t they ar e

plausible.

Getfeedback

Try

to ge t

as

much feedback on your writing as possible

nd

respond po sitively to th e

points anyone makes about

what

they read.

Your

supervisor

is l ikely to

be

t he m ai n

source

offeedback

but institutions vary in

what

supervi

sors

are allowed

to

comment

on . Provide

your supervisor

with

drafts

of your

work to

th e fullest

extent

that regula

tions

will

allow. Give

him

or he r plenty of t ime to provide

feedback.

There

will be

others like

you

wh o

will

want

Writing up

social

research

your

supervisor

to

conunent

on their work

and

i he or

sh e

feels rushed th e

comments may

be less helpful. Also,

yo u ~ o u as k

others

on

th e

same degree

programme to

r ea d y ou r d ra ft s a nd c om me nt

on

t he m. T he y m ay

ask

yo u to do th e

same

.

Their

comments may be very useful, .

but

by

an d

large,

your supervisor s comments are

the

main ones you should seek

out.

Avoid sexist, racist, an d disablist

language

R em em be r t ha t y ou r w ri ti ng sh oul d be

free of sexist ,

racist,

an d

disablist

language.

Th e British Sociological

Association

p ro vi de s v er y go od gene ral a nd

specific

advice

about

this issue, which ca n be found at http://

w ww .britsoc.co.ukJequality/

(accessed on

16 July

2007).

:t,

, :

.

i

i

Co

. .

ips

nd skills

Non sexist writin

One ofthe biggest problems (but by no means the only one) when trying to write in a non sexist way is

avoiding complex h

is/her

formulations. The easiest way of dealing with this is to write inthe plural insuch

circumstances. Consider, for example : I wanted to giveeach respondent the opportunity to complete the

questionnaire in his or her own time and ina location that was convenient for him or her . Thisis a rather

tortuous sentence and, although grammatically correct,itcould be phrased more

helpfUlly

as: l wanted to give

respondents th e opportunity to complete their questionnaires in their own time and in a location that was

convenient for them .

Structure your writing

It may be

that

you

have to write

a

dissertation

of

around

10,000-15,000

words

for

your

degree.

H ow m ig ht

it be

Structured?

Th e

following

is

typical of th e Structure of a

dissertation .

Title page

You should

examine

your institution s rules

a b ou t w ha t

should be entered here.

Acknowledgements

You

might want to acknowledge th e help of various

people, su ch as

gatekeeper

s

wh o

g av e y ou access to an

organization

people

wh o

have

read your

drafts

an d

provided

you

with

feedback, or

your

supervisor

for his or

he r

advice.

list of contents

Your institution ma y have

recommendations

or prescrip

tions about th e

form this

should

take

An abstract

A

brief

summary

o f your

dissertation.

No t ail

institu

tions require

this

component

so

check

on

whether

it is

required

. Journal articles usually

ha v

e abstracts, so you

can d raw

on

these

for

guidance

on

ho w

to

approach

this task.


7/32


Introduction

The following are some points to consider when writing

an introduction.

You should explain what you are writing about and

why it is important. Saying simply that it interests

you because of a long-standing personal interest is

not enough.

You

might indicate in general terms the theoretical

approach or perspective you will be using and why.

You should also at this point outline your research

questions. In the case of dissertations based on quali

tative research, it is likely that your research ques

tions will be rather more open-ended than is the case

with quantitative research . But do

try

to identify some

research questions. A totally open-ended research

focus is riskyand can lead to the collectionof too much

data, and, when it comes to writing up, itcan result in

a lackof focus.

The opening sentence or sentences are often the most

difficultof all. Becker 1986) advises strongly against

opening sentences that he describes as vacuous and

evasive . He gives the example of This study deals

with the problem of careers , and adds that this kind

of sentence employs a typically evasive manceuvre,

pointing to something without saying anything, or

anything much, about it.

h t

about careers? Becker

1986: 51). He suggests that such evasiveness often

occurs because of concerns about givingawaythe

plat.

fact, he argues, it is much better to give readers a

quick and clear indication ofwhat isgoing to bemeted

out to them and where it isgoing.

liter ture

review

See Chapter 4 for more detailed advice on how to go

about writing this chapter of your dissertation.

Research methods

The term research methods is meant here as a kind

of catch-all for several issues that need to be outlined:

your research design; your sampling approach; how

access was achieved if relevant; the procedures youUsed

such as, if you sent out a postal questionnaire, did

you follow up non-respondents); the nature ofyourques.

tionnaire, interview schedule, participant observation

role, observation schedule, coding frame, or

whatever

these will usually appearin an appendix, but you

should

comment on such things as your style of questioning Or

observation and why you asked the thingsyoudid); prob-

lems of non-response ; note taking; issues of ongoing

access and cooperation; coding matters; and how you

proceeded with your analysis. When discussingeachof

these issues, you should describe and defend the choices

that you made, such as why you used a postal question-

naire rather than a stru tured interview approach, or

why you focused upon that particular population for

sampling purposes.

ips

nd

skills

he

import n e

of n

rgument

Inmyexperience, one ofthe thingsthat studentsfind most

difficult

about

writing

up theirresearch isthe

formulat ionof an argument. Thewriting -upof research shouldbe organized around an argument that

links

allaspectsof the researchprocessfrom

problem formulat

ion,

through

literature

review

and the

presentat ion

of researchmethods,to the

discussion

and conclusion. Toooften,students makea series ofpointswithout

asking what the contribution ofthose pointsisto the overall argumentthat they are trying to present. Consider

what your

claim

to knowledge isand tryto organize yourwr

iting

to support and enhance it.Thatwill be

yourargument.

Sometimes

itis

useful

to think in termsof

seeking

to tella storyabout your

research

and your

findings. Try to avoid

tangentsand

irrelevant material

that maymean that yourreaders

will

losethe

thread

ofyourargument. Ifyouare not able to supply a dear argument, youare very vulnerable to the so what?

Question. Ask yourself: What isthe keypointormessage that Iwantmy readers to take away

with

themwhen

they have

fin

ished readingmy

work?

Ifyoucannotanswerthatsimple Question satisfactorily anditmay be

worth

trying

itout on others), almostcertainly youdo not havean argument.Theargument isa thread that

runs through yourdissertation see Figure 27

foran illustration of this .


8/32

The role of an argument ina dissert tlon

lntroductlon

A

Literaturereview

R

G

Research methods

u

Results

M

iscussion

N

onclusion

T

Writing up socia l rese rch

Results

In this chapter you present the bulk of your findings.

you intend to have a separate Discussion chapter, it is

likelythat the results will be presented with little com-

mentary in terms of the literature or the implications of

your findings. If there will be no Discussion chapter, you

will need to provide some reflections on the significance

of your findings for your research questions and for the

literature. Bear these points in mind.

Whichever approach you take, remember not to

include

your results. You should present and dis-

cuss only those findings that relate to your research

questions. This requirement may mean a rather

painful process of leaving out many findings, but it

is necessary, so that the thread of your argument is

not lost (see Tips and skills 'The importance of an

argument ' for more on the significance of having a

good argument).

Your writing should point to particularly salient as-

peers of the tables, graphs, or other forms of analysis

you present. Do not just summarize what a table

shows; you should direct the reader to the component

or components of it that are especially striking from

the point of viewofyour research questions. Try toask

yourself what story you want the table to convey and

try

to relay that story to your readers.

Another sin to be avoided is simply presenting a

graph or table or a section of the

tr nscript

of a semi-

structured

interview or focus

group

session without

any comment whatsoever, because the reader is left

wondering why you think the finding is important.

When reponing quantitative findings, it is quite a

good idea to vary wherever possible the method of

presenting results for example, provide a mixture of

diagrams and tables. However, you must remember

the lessons of Chapter 14 concerning the methods

of analysis that are appropriate to different types of

variable.

A particular problem that can arise with qualitative

research is

th t

students find it difficult to leave out

large p ns of their d t . As one experienced qualita -

tive researcher has put it: 'Themajor problem we face

inqualitative inquiry isnot toget data, but toget rid of

it ' (Wolcott 99 a: 18). He goes on to say that the

'critical task in qualitative research is not to accumu-

late all the data you can, but to can

[i.e,

get rid of]

most of the data you accumulate' (Wolcott1990a: 35).

You simply have to recognize that much of the rich

data you accumulate will have to bejettisoned. Ifyou

do not do this, any sense of an argument inyour work

is likely to be lost. There is also the risk that your

account of your findings will appear too descriptive

and lack an analytical edge. This iswhy it is important

to use research questions as a focus and to orient the

presentationofyour findings to them. It isalsoimport-

ant to keep in mind the theoretical ideas and the liter-

ature that have framed your work. The theory and

literature that have influenced your thinking will also

have shaped your research questions.


9/32

...

W

riting up social research

~ l ~ r

w

,.

. .. I

1,1

.

L .

w

tudent experien e

o nottry to writ

up

everything

You will not be able to write up everything that you havefound.

Sophie

Masonrecognizedthis.

She

writes:

The greatquantity of datameant that I had to usemy own judgementas to what datawas themost

relevant

totheaimsof the

research

. I

also

had to be careful to usevisual

aids

when usingcomplicated

statistics

to

emphasize the importance of the results

Rebecca Barneswrites:

Because

somany important and interesting

issues

haveemergedin theanalysis of mydata.I

have

hadtobe

selective

; I havechosento do justice to a smallernumber of themes, rather than resortingto superficial

coverage of a largernumber of themes

Toread more about Sophie sond Rebeccasresearch experiences go to the Online Resource Centrethat

accompanies this boo k at http://www ox ordtextbooksco uk/orc/brymansrm3e/

tudent experien e

The importance o research questions theory

and the literature in writing up findings

Several

students mentioned how important it wasfor them to keep in mind their researchquestions and

the theory and literature that were driving their

research

while writing up. Forone thing, they helpthe

student to decide which findings to include or to emphasize when writing up.

Rebecca

Barneswrites:

I choseto have three chaptersof my thesisthat reported my

findings

andI

chose

the themesthatI would

indude in eachof thesechapters. These were not. however,setin stone andhavechangedina numberof

respects from when I first started to plan the writing-up.

Each

of

these chapters addresses

oneofmymain

research

questions or aims.

ErinSanders writes: First I wrote down the main points and ideasI wanted to get across-and how my

findings related to [my research

Question

. Hannah Creane s writing-up of her findings wasgeared

to

her

research Questions

I grouped together questionsand responses that concemedsimilar

aspects

within the childhooddebate

and

formed threemain chapters: What makes a child a child?: Childhoodpasttimes:and The childtoday. Within

these

chapters

I interwove themesthat emergedfrom the data andseemed tobe presentin most

responses

For Gareth Matthews the theoretical debates about the labour process were crucial: This hasallowedme

to frame my thesistheoretically , and to lay the foundations for a

discussion

of my empirical findings.

Toread more about Rebecca s Erin5 Hannah 5 and Gareth s research experiences. go to the Online

ResourceCentre that accompanies this book at htlp:llwww oxfordtextbooks couk lorclbrymansrm3el


10/32

Uyou are writinga thesis--forexample, for an M.PhiJ.

or Ph.D.

degree it

is likely that you will have more

than one and possibly several chapters in which you

present your results. Cryer 1996 recommends show

ing at

the

beginning

of

each chapter the particular

issues that are being examined in the chapter . You

should indicate which research question or questions

are being addressed in the chapter and provide some

signposts about what will be included in the chapter.

In the conclusion of the chapter, you should make

dear

what your results have shown and

draw

out any

links

that might be

made

with the next results chapter.

Discussion

In the Discussion, you reflect on the implications of your

findings for the research questions that have driven your

research. In other words, how do your results illuminate

your research questions? If you have specified hypo

theses, the discussion

w

revolve around whether the

hypotheses have been confirmed

or

not, and, if not, you

might speculate about

some

possible reasons for and the

implicationsof their refutation.

Conclusion

The main points here are as follows.

AConclusion is not the same as a summary. However,

it

is

frequently useful to bring out in the opening para

graph of

the

Conclusion

your

argument thus far. This

will mean relating your findings and your discussion

of them to your research questions. Thus, your brief

summary should be a means of hammering home

to

your readers the significance ofwhat you have done.

You should make

clear

the implications of your find

ings for your research questions.


You might suggest some ways in which your findings

have implications for theories relating to your area of

interest.

You might draw attention to any limitations of your

research with the benefit of hindsight, but it is prob

ably best not to overdo this element and provide exam

iners with too much ammunition that might be used

against youl

It isof tenvaluable

to

propose areas of further research

that are suggested byyour findings.

Two things to avoid are engaging in speculations that

take you too far away from your data, or that cannotbe

substantiated by the data, and introducing issues or

ideas that have not previously been brought up.

ppendices

In your appendices you might

want

to include such things

as your questionnaire, coding frame, or observation

schedule, letters sent to sample members, and letters sent

to and received from gatekeepers where the cooperation

of an organization was required.

eferences

Include here

all

references cited in the text. For the format

of the References section you should follow whichever

one isprescribed byyour department. Nowadays, the for

mat is usually a variation of me Harvard method, such as

the one employed for this book.

Finally

Remember to fulfil any obligations you entered into, such

as supplying a copy of your dissertation, if, for example,

your access

to

an organization was predicated on provid

ing one, and maintaining the confidentiality of informa

tion supplied and the anonymity of your informants and

other

research participants.

~ ~ i

tudent xp ri n

tructure

o

th

dissert tion or thesis

Some of the students wrote up their workwith a similarstructure to the one that has been outlined inthis

section. Sophie Masonwrites:

The research

proj t

waswritten invariousstages and splitinto severaldifferentsections;these were as

follows: Introductionand

ims

LiteratureReview , ResearchDesignand DataGathering,Data nalysisand

ResearchFindings.Condusionsand Recommendations.Appendixand

Bibliography

.


11/32


Erin Sanders writes:

Iwrote it inorder, introduction, literature review, research design, findings, discussion,and conciusion,l

each section asifitwere an essay in and of itself and attempted to break itdown intochunks soas nottoget

lost ina long document.

~

Toread more about Sophie s

and

Erin sresearch experiences go to the Online Resource Centrethat

accompanies this book at http: www oxfordtextbooks co uk orc brymansrm3el

Tips andskills

Proof reading

y u

dissertation

Before Ubmittingyour dissertation, make sure that it isspell-checked and check it forgrammaticaland

punctuation errors. There are many useful guides and handbooks that can be used forthis purpose. Itmayalso

be usefulto ask someone else, such as a friendor family member, to proof read

your

work incase there are

errors that you have missed. Aswellas being an important presentational issue,this will affectthe ease with

which yourwritten work can be read and understood. Ittherefore has the potential to affect the qualityofyour

dissertation significantly.

riting up quantitative qualitative

nd mixed methods rese r h

In the next t hr ee s ec ti on s, r es ea rc h- ba se d a rti cl es

that

have been published in journals

are

examined to detect

some helpful features. One is b ase d on quantitative re

search, one on qualitative research, and anotheron mixed

methods

research. The presentation of the quantitative

and the qualitative research articles raises the question of

whether practitioners of

the

two research strategies em

ploydifferent writing approaches. It issometimes suggested

that

they do, though,

when

I

compared

two articles based

on research in the sociology of work, I found

that

the dif

ferences were less pronounced

than

I had anticipated on

the basis of r ea di ng the l it er at ur e on

the

topic Bryman

1998). One difference thatI have noticed isthat, injournals,

quantitative researchers often give more detailed accounts

of their research design, research methods, and approaches

to analysis than qualitative researchers. This issurprising,

because, in books reporting their research, qualitative re

searchers provide detailed accounts of these areas. Indeed,

the cha pters in Part T hr ee of this book rely h ea vi ly on

these accounts. Wolcott 199 a:

27

has also noticed this

tendency: Our [qualitative researchers ] failure to render

full and complete disclosure

about our

data-gathering

procedures give

our

methodologically oriented colleagues

fits. And rightly so, especially for those among them will

ing to accept our contributions ifwe would only provide

more careful

data

about

our

data. Being informed that

a study was based

on

a year s participant observation or

a n um be r of s em i- st ru ct ur ed in ter vie ws is not enough

to gain an a cc ep ta nc e

of

the claims to credibility that a

writer might be wishing to convey.

Ho wev er, this p oi nt as id e, in the dis cussio n that Iol

lows, although

one

article based on quantitative research

and one based on qualitative research will be examined,

we should not be too surprised if they tum out to be more

similar than might have been expected. In other words,

. a lthough we might have expected clear differences

between the two in terms of their approaches to writing,

the similarities are more noticeable than the differences.

In addition

t

looking

at

examples of writing

in

quanti

tative and qualitative research, I will examine the matter


12/32

of how mixed met ho ds resea rc h can be w ri tt en up and

explore s om e guidelines t ha t are being prof fered by

practitioners. The a pp ro ac h to d ea li ng with the mixed

methods res ea rc h article is s lig ht ly d iffe re nt from the

other twO in that I

will

begin with some general sugges

tions for writing up mixed methods research as this is an

re

that has not been given a

great

deal ofattention.

.

Writing up quantitative research

Toillustratesome of the characteristics of the way quanti

tativeresearch is written up for academic journals, I will

take the article by Kelley and De Graaf 1997 that was

referred to on several occasions in Chapters 1 2 6 and

13

see especially Research in focus

1.4

and

6.3). I

am not

suggesting that this article

is

somehow exemplary or

representative,

but

rather that it exhibits some features

that are o ft en reg arde d as d es irab le qu al it ies

in

terms

of presentation and structure. The article is based on a

secondary

analysis

of survey

data

on religion in fifteen

nations and was ac cep te d for p ub li ca ti on in one of the

most p re st ig io us j ou rn al s in sociology the

meric n

Sociological eview which is the official j ou rn al of the

American Sociological Association. The vast majority of

published articles in academic journals entail the blind

refereeing of articles submitted. This means that an arti

cle will be read by two or t hr ee peers, who c om me nt on

the anicle and give the editors ajudgement about its mer

its and h en ce whether it is

wonhy

of publication. Most

articles submitted are rejected. With highly prestigious

journals, it iscommon for in excess of

90 per

cent of arti

c es

to be rejected. It is unusual for an article to be

accepted on its first submission. Usually,

the

referees

will

suggest areas that need revising and the

author

or

authors) is

expected to respond

to that

feedback. Revised

versions of articles are usually sent back to the referees for

funher comment, and th is process may result in the

a ut ho r h avi ng to revise the d ra ft yet again. It may even

result in rejection. Therefore, an article like Kelleyand De

Graafs is not just the culmination of a research process,

but is also the o ut co me of a feed bac k pro cess. The fact

that it has

been

accepted for publication, when many

others have been rejected , testifies to its merits as having

met the s ta nd ards of the j ou rn al. That is not to say it

is

perfect, but the refereeing process isan indication that it

does possess certain crucial qualities.

Structure

The article has the following components, aside from the

abstract:


1. introduction;

2., theory;

3.

data;

4.

measurement ;

5. methods

and

models;

6.

results;

7.

conclusion.

Introduction

Right at

the

beginning of

the

introduction, the opening

four sentences attempt to g rab our attention, to give a

clear i nd ic at io n of w he re the arti cl e s focus lies, and to

provide an indication of the probable significance of the

findings . This is

what

the authors write :

Religionremains a central element of modern life,

shaping people s world-views, moral standards, family

lives,and in many nations, their politics.

But

in many

Western nations, modernization and secularization

may be eroding Christian beliefs, with profound

consequences

that

have intrigued sociologistssince

Durkheim. Yet this much touted secularization may

be

overstated certainly

it varies widely among

nations and isabsent in the United States Benson,

Donahue, and Erickson

1989: 154-7:

Felling,Peters,

and Schreuder

1991;

Firebaugh and Harley

1991;

Stark and Iannaccone

1994) .

We explore

the

degree to

which religious beliefs are passed on from generation

to generation in different nations . Kelleyand De

Graaf 1997: 639)

This is an i mpressive s ta rt , because, in j us t over 100

words, the authors set out what

the article

is about

and its

significance. Let us look at

what

each sentence achieves.

The first sentence locates the article s research focusas

addressing an important aspect of

modem

society that

touches on many people s lives.

The s ec on d s e nt en ce n ot es that there isvariety among

Western nations in the importance of religion and that

the v aria ti on s may have p ro fo un d conseq uence s .

But this s en te nc e does more t ha n the first sen ten ce :

it also s ug ge st s t ha t this is an area that has been of

interest to sociologists . To support this point , one of

sociology s most venerated figures-Emi le

Durkheim-

is mentioned.

The t hir d se nt en ce suggests

that

there is a problem

w it h the n ot io n of secular izat ion, which has been a


13/32


14/32

certain theories

out

religious beliefs In

modem

society,

whichwere outlined in their Theory section:

Our results also speak to the long-running debate

about USexceptionalism (Warner 1993): They support

the viewthat

the

United States is unusually religious.

. . . Our results do not support Stark and Iannaccone s

(1994) supply-side analysis of differences between

nations whi h argues that nations with religious

monopolies have substantial unmet religious needs,

while churches in religiously competitive nations like

the United States do a better job of meeting diverse

religiousneeds. (Kelley and De Graaf 1997: 655)

. - _ . . . .. . , . , r -

The final paragraph spells out some inferences about

thewaysin which social changes have an impact on levels

of religious belief n a nation. The authors suggest that

factors such as modernization arid the growth of educa

don depress levels of religious beliefand

th t

their impact

tends to result in a precipitous

r ther

th n a gradual fallin

levelsof religiosity. In their final three sentences, they go

on to write out societies undergoing such change:

The offspring ofdevout families mostly remain

devout, but the offspring of more secular families

now strongly tend to be secular. A self-reinforcing

spiral ofsecularization then sets in, shifting the

nation s average religiosity ever further away from

orthodoxy. So after generations of stability, religious

beliefdeclines abruptly in the course ofa few

generations to the modest levels seen in many

Western nations. (Kelley and De Graaf 1997: 656)

It might be argued th t these reflections are somewhat

risky, because the

d t

from which the authors derive

their findings are cross-sectional in research design terms

rather than longitudinal. They are clearly extrapolating

from

their

scoring of the fifteen nations in terms of levels

of modernization to the impact of social changes on

national levels of religiosity. However, these final sen

tences make for a strong conclusion, which itself might

form a springboard for further research.

lessons

What lessons can be learned from Kelley and De Graaf s

article? To some extent, these have been alluded to in

the course of the above exposit ion, ut they are worth

spelling out.

Writing up

social

rese rch 7

There is a clear

ttempt

to grab the reader s attention

with st rong opening statements, which also act as

signposts to wh t the article isabout.

The

uthors

spell out

de rly

the rationale of their

research. This entails pointing

to

the continued sig

nificance of religion in many societies and to the litera

ture on religious beliefs and secularization.

The research questions are spelled out in a very

specific way . In fact, the authors present hypotheses

th t are a highly specific form of research question.

s noted n Chapter 6, by no means all quantitative

research isdrivenbyhypotheses, even though outlines

of the n ture of quantitative research often imply that

it is. Nonetheless, Kelleyand De Graaf chose to frame

their research questions in this form.

The

n ture

of the data,

the

measurement of concepts,

the sampling, the research methods employed and the

approaches to the analysis of the data are dearly and

explicitly summarized insections 3, 4, and S.

The presentation of the findings insection 6 isoriented

very specifically to the research questions that drive

the research.

The conclusion returns to the research questions and

spells

out

the implications of the findings for them

and for the theories examined in section 2. This is

an impor tan t element. It is easy to forget that you

should think of

the

research process as closing a circle

in which you must return unambiguously to your

research questions. There is no point inserting extra

neous findings they do not illuminate your research

questions. Digressions of this kind can be confusing to

readers, who might be inclined to wonder about the

significance

of

the extraneous findings.

We also see that there is a clear sequential process

moving from the formulation of the research questions

through the exposition of the nature of the data and the

presentat ion of the findings to the conclusions. Each

stage islinked to nd follows on from its predecessor (but

see Thinking deeply 27.1). The structure used by Kelley

and De Graa f is based on a common one employed in

the writ ing-up of quanti tat ive research for academic

journals in the social sciences. Sometimes there isa separ

ate Discussion section

th t

appears between the Results

and the Conclusion. Another variation is that issues of

measurement and analysis appear in the same section as

the one dealing with research methods, but perhaps with

distinct subheadings.


15/32

7

ritin

upso i l

r e s e r ~ h

Thinking deeply

27.1

An empiricist repertoire?

Atthispoint, it isworth

recalling

the discussion inChapter20ofGilbertand

MUlkay s

(1984)

research on

scientists.Theauthorsdrewa distinction between an em irkist

repertoire

and a contingent

repertoire The

formerderived from the observation that the texts ofexperimentalpapers display certain recurrent

styl

istic

g r a m m a t i c ~ and lexical featureswhichappear to be coherentlyrelated (Gilbert and

Mulkay

1984;55-6).

We

shouldbear in mind that the same istrue ofpapers writtenforsocial sciencejournals. Thesetoo

display Certa

n

features thatsuggesta certain

inevitability

to the outcomeofthe research.

n

other words,the readeris

given

a sense that, in

following

the

rigorous

proceduresoutlined in the article, the researchers

logically

arr

ived

at

their conclusions . Thecontingentrepertoire,withits recognition ofthe roleof the researcherinthe

production

of

find

ings, is far lessapparent in scientists published

work

. Thus, we have to recognize the possibility that

the

impression

ofa seriesof

linked

stagesleadingto an inescapableculmination isto a largeextenta

reconstruction ofeventsdesigned to persuade referees(who,ofcourse,use the same

tactics themselves)

ofthe credib

ility

and importance ofone s

findings.

This

means that the conventions about

writing

upa

Quantitat iveresearchproject. someofwhich are outlined in thischapter,are inmanywaysallinvitation to

reconstructan investigation ina particular way. Thewholeissueofthe waysinwhichthe writing-up ofresearch

representsa meansofpersuadingothers ofthe

credibility

ofone s

knowledge claims

has beena

particular

preoccupation amongqualitative researchers(see below)andhas been greatlyinnuencedbythe

surge

of

interest inpostmodernism. However, in Thinking deeply27.2,someof the rhetorical strategies involved in

writingup quantitative

social

researchareoutlined. Threepointsareworth making about these strategies in

the present context.

First

theyare characteristic of the empiricist repertoire.

Second,

whilethe

writ

ingof

Qualitat ive research hasbeen a particular

focus

in recent times(see below).someattention hasalsobeen

paid

to Quantitative research.

Third,

when Icompared the writing ofQuanti tativeand Qualitative research articles ,

Ifound theywere not as dissimilar in termsof rhetorical strategiesas issometimesproposed

Bryman

1998).

However,ldid

find

greaterevidenceofa managementmetaphor (see

Thinking

deeply27

.2),

which

is

also

evident in

Kelley

and DeCraal s

article;

forexample, we excludedthe deviant cases

from

our

analysis

0997:

646)

and we divided the nationsinto five groups (1997: 647).

Writing up qualitative research

Nowwe will look at an example ofa journal article based

on qualitative research, Again, I am not suggesting that

the article Is exemplary or representative, but that it

exhibits some features that are often regarded as desir

able qualities in terms of presentation and structure. The

article isone that has been referred

to in

several previous

chapters (especially Research in focus

2.10, 18.2,

and

18 8 : a study of vegetarianism byBeardsworth and Keil

(1992).

The study isbased on semi-structured interviews

and was published in the ociologic l

Review

a leading

Britishjournal.

Structure

The Structure runs as follows:

1 introduction;

2.

theanalysisofthe socialdimensionsoffood

lind eating

;

3. studies ofvegetarianism;

4. the design of the study;

5. the findings ofthe study;

6 explaining contemporary vegetarianism;

7.

conclusions.

What

is

immediately striking about the structure is that

it is not dissimilar to Kelley and De Graaf s

(1997).

Nor should this be all that surprising. Afterall, a srructure

that runs

Introduction

Literature review

Research design

methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions


16/32

is not obviously associated with one rese rch str tegy

rather than the other. One difference from quantitative

research articles is

th t

the presentation ofthe results and

the discussion of them are frequently rather more inter

woven

in

qualitative research articles. We

will

see this

in

the case of Beardsworth and Keil sarticle.

As

with Kelley

and De Graaf s article , we will examine the writing in

ten

of the article s structure.

Introduction

The first four s en tences give us an immediate sense of

what the article isabout and where its focus lies;

The purpose of this paper isto offer a contribution

to the analysis of

the

cultural and sociological factors

which influence patterns of food selection and food

avoidance. The spedfic focus iscontemporary

vegetarianism, a complex of inter-related beliefs,

attitudes and nutritional practices which has to date

received comparatively little attention from social

scientists. Vegetarians in western cultures, in most

instances, are not life-long practitioners but converts.

Theyare individuals who have subjected more

traditional foodways to critical scrutiny, and

subsequently made a deliberate decision to change

their eating habits, sometimes in a radical fashion.

Beardsworth and Kei 99 : 253)

like Kelley and De Graaf s, this is a strong introduction.

Wecan look again at what each sentence achieves.

The first sentence makes clear

th t

the research iscon

cerned with issues to do with the study of food.

The second sentence provides us with the specific re

search

focus the

study ofveget ri nism nd makes

a claim for our attention by suggesting th t this is a

topic that has been under-researched by sociologists.

Interestingly, this is almost the opposite of the claim

made by Kelleyand DeGraaf

in

their second sentence,

in that they po int to a line of sociological interest in

religion going back Durkheim. Each is a legitimate

textual Strategy for gaining the attention of readers.

Our att ent ion is jolted even more by an interesting

assertion th t begins to draw the reader into

one

of the

article s primary themes the idea of vegetarians as

converts .

The fourth sentence elaborates upon the idea of vege

tarianism as being for most people an issue of choice

rather than a tradition into which one isborn.

Writing up social research 7

Thus, after around 100 words, the reader has a clear idea

of the focus of the research and has been led to anticipate

there is unlikely to be a great deal of pre-existing

social research on this issue.

The analysis of

th e

social dimensions of food

nd

e ting

This and the next section review existing theory and

research in this area. In th is section, the contributions of

various social scientists to social aspects of food and eat

ing are discussed . The literature reviewed acts as a back

cloth to the issue of vegetarianism. Beardsworth and Keil

I992: 255) propose th t their review of existing theory

and research suggests th t there exists a range of theor

etical and empirical resources which can be b ro ug ht to

bear upon the issue of contemporary vegetarianism . This

point is important, as the authors note once again at the

end of the section that vegetarianism has received little

attention from social scientists.

Studies of vegetarianism

This section examines aspects ofthe literature on vegetar

ianism that has

been

carried outby social scientists or th t

has a social scientific angle. The review includes: opinion

poll and survey data, which point to the likelypercentage

of vegetarians

in

the British population; debates about

animal rights; sociological analysis of vegetarian ideas ;

and one st udy Dwyer er

l

1974)

of vegetarians in the

USAcarried out by a team of social scientists using sur

vey research. In the final p ar ag raph of

this

section, the

authors indicate the contribution ofsome of the literature

they have covered.

The design of the study

The first sentence of this section forges a useful

link

with

the preceding one: The themes outlined above appear to

warrant further investigation, preferably in a manner

which allows for a much more richly detailed exarnina

tion of motivations and experiences than is apparent in

the s tu dy by Dwyer er

01.

Beardsworth and Keil 1992:

260) . This opening gambit allows the authors to suggest

that the literature in this area is scant and that there are

many unanswered questions. Also, they distance them

selves from the one sociological study of vegetarians,

which in tum leads them to set up the grounds for prefer

ring qualitative research. The authors then outline;

who was to be st udie d and why;

how respondents were recruited see Research in

focus 18.8) and the difficulties encountered;


17/32

7

Writing up

social research

the semi-srrucrured interviewing approach (see

Research in focus 18.2 and the rationale for it;

the number of people interviewed and the context in

which the interviews took place;

the approach

analysing the interview transcripts,

which largely comprised the identification of themes.

The findings of

the study

The chief findings are outlined

under

separate headings:

respondents characteristics; types of vegetarianism; the

process of conversion; motivations; nutritional beliefs;

social relations; and dilemmas. The presentation of the

results is carried out so

that

there is some discussion of

their meaningor significance in such a way as to lead onto

the next section, which provides exclusively a discussion .

of them. For example, in the final sentence in the section

reporting findings relating

to

nutritional beliefs , the

authors write:

Just as meat tended to imply strongly negative

connotations for respondents. concepts like fruit

and vegetable tended to elicit positive reactions,

although less frequently and in a more muted form

than might have been anticipated on the basis

ofthe analysis of the ideological underpinnings of

wholefoods consumption put forward by Atkinson

(1980,1983),

or on

the

basis

ofthe

analysis of

vegetarian food symbolism advanced by Twigg

(1983: 28). (Beardsworth and Kei11992: 276)

.. . , _ . , -

- - - - - : - - - , - ; - -

-- . ,-.- 1 - . - _ .. _ - _ ,.. - _ - - _ . ,_ . . , ,.;

In thisway, the presentation of the results ispointing for

ward to some themes that

are taken up in the following

sections and demonstrates the significance of certain

findings for some of the previously discussed literature.

Explaining contemporary vegetarianism

This section discusses the findings in the light of the

study s research questions in connection with food selec

tion and avoidance. The results are also related to many

of the ideas encountered in the two sections dealing

with

the literature. The authors develop an idea emerging

from their research, which they call food ambivalence .

This concept encapsulates for the authors the anxieties

and paradoxes concerning food that can be discerned in

the interview transcripts (for example, food can be con

st rued both as necessary for s trength and energy and

simultaneously as a source of illness). Vegetarianism is in

many respects a response to the dilemmas associated

with food ambivalence.

Conclusions

In ,this section, the authors return to many of the

ideas

and themes

that

have driven their research. Theyspell

Ut

the significance of the idea of food ambiValence,which is

probably the article s main conrribution to research

in

this

area. The final paragraphoutJines the importance of

f d

ambivalence for vegetarians, but the authors are

careful

not

imply

that

it is the sole reason for the adoptionof

vegetarianism. In the final sentence theywrite :

HOwever

for a significant segment of the population [vegetarian:

ism] appears to representa viabledevice for

re establishing

some degree of peace ofmind when contemplating some

of the darker implications of the carefully arranged

message on the dinner plate (Beardswonh and

eil

1992: 290). This sentence neatly encapsulates one ofthe

article s master themes the idea of vegetarianism as a

response to food ambivalence and alludes through the

reference to the carefully arranged message to

semiotic

analyses of meat and food.

lessons

As with Kelleyand DeGraafs article, it isuseful to

review

some of the lessons learned from this examination of

Beardsworth and Keil s article.

Just like the illustration of quantitative research writ-

ing, there are strong opening sentences, which attract

our

attention

and give a clear indication of the nature

and

content of the article.

The rationale of the research isclear y identified.Toa

large extent, this revolves around identifying the soci-

ological study of food and eating as a growing area of

research but noting the paucity of investigations of

vegetarianism.

Research questions are specified but they ate some

what more open-ended than in KeUey and DeGraaf s

article, which is in keeping with the general orienta

tion of qualitative researchers. The research questions

revolve around the issue of vegetarianism as a dletary

choice and the motivations for

that

choice.

The research design and methods are outlined and an

indication isgiven of the approach to analysis.The sec-

tion in which these issues are discussed demonstrates

greater transparency than is sometimes the case with

articles reporting qualitative research.

The presentation and discussion of the findings in

sections 5 and 6 are geared to the broad research

questions

that

motivated the researchers interest in

vegetarianism. However, section 6 also represents the


18/32

major opportunity for the idea of food ambivalence

and its dimensions to be articulated. The inductive

nature ofqualitative research means that the concepts

and theories that are generated from an investigation

must be clearly identified and discussed, as in this

case.

The conclusion elucidates in a more specific way the

significance of the results for the research questions. t

alsoexplores the implications of food ambivalence for

vegetarians, so thatone of the article s major theoret

icalcontributions is clearly identified and emphasized.

riting

upmixedmethods rese rch

partly because interest in and the practice of mixed

rnethodsresearch has gained momentumonly in relatively

recent times, it has few ifany writing conventions. More

particularly, it is difficult to say what an exemplary

or model mixed methods research journal article might

looklike. To a certain extent, it is bound to borrow some

ofthe conventions associated with writing up quantitative

and qualitative research in terms of needing to stan out

with a research focus in the sense of a research problem

and/or some research questions. Creswell and Tashakkori

(2007: 108), the editors of the Journal of Mixed

ethocis

Research

have suggested that good original/empirical

mixedmethods articles should be:

well-developed in both quantitative and qualitative

components (Creswell and Tashakkori 2007: 108) ;

and

more than reporting two distinct strands of quanti

tative and qualitative research; these studies must also

integrate.Iink, or connect these strands in some way

(Creswell and Tashakkori 2007: 108).

Theyactually add a third feature of good mixed methods

articles namely that they contribute to the literature on

mixedmethods research in some way. This seems a rather

tali order for many writers and researchers, so that I

Would tend to emphasize the

other

two features.

The first implies

that

the quantitative and the qualita

tive components of a mixed methods article should be

at the very least competently executed. This means that

in terms of the fundamental criteria for conducting good

quantitative and good qualitative research, mixed meth

ods research should conform to both quantitative and

qualitative research criteria. In terms ofwriting, itmeans

that, for each of the components,

t

should

be

clear what

the research questions were, how the samplingwas done,

Writing up social research 7

what the data collection technique(s) was or were, and

qow the data were analysed.

The second feature implies that a good mixed methods

article

w

be more than the sum of its parts. This issue

relates to a tendency that has been identified by some

writers (e.g. Bryman 2007c; O Cathain et al. 2007) for

some mixed methods researchers not tomake the best use

of their quantitative and qualitative data, in that they

often do not l nk the two sets of findings so that they

extract the maximum yield from their study.

As

Creswell

and Tashakkori (2007: 108)

put

it:

The expectation isthat, bythe end of the manuscript,

conclusions gleaned from the two strands are

integrated to provide a fullerunderstanding of the

phenomenon under study. Integration might be in

the form of comparing. contrasting, buildingon, or

embedding one type of conclusionwith the other.

To some extent, whenwriting up the results froma mixed

methods study, researchers might make it easier for

themselves

to

get across the extra yield associated with

their investigations if they make clear their rationales for

including both quantitative and qualitative components

in their overall research strategy. The issue of rationales

for conducting mixed methods research is one that was

addressed in Chapter 25.

Further advice on writing up mixed methods research

can be found in suggestions inCreswell and Plano Clark s

(2007: 161) delineation of a structure for a mixed rneth

ods journal

article. They suggest that the structure should

be along the following lines.

ntroduction

This would include such features as: a

statement of the research problem or issue; an exam

n t ~ n of the literature on the problem/issue; an

examination of the problems with the prior literature,

which might include indicating why a mixed methods

approach would be beneficial perhaps because much

of the previous research isbased mainly onjust quanti

tative or qualitative research; and the specificresearch

questions.

Methods This would include such features as: indicat

ing the rationale for the mixed methods approach; the

type of mixed methods design (see e.g. Morgan s

classification of approaches to mixed methods re

search

n

Thinking deeply 25.3) ; data collection and

data analysis methods; and indications of how the

qualityof the

data

can bejudged.


19/32

676 Writing up social research

;

ps and sk lls

r :0 { ;it

? rate V K ) ~ } i

z

duction ofethnographic texts.

Ethnographic texts are designed to convince readers

of the re lity of the events and situations described, and

the plausibility of the analyst s explanations. The ethno

graphic text must not simply present a set of findings: it

must provide an authoritative account of the group or

culture in question. In other words, the ethnographer

must convinceus that he or she has arrived at an account

ofsocial reality that has strong claims

10

truth.

The ethnographic text is permeated by stylistic and

rhetorical devices whereby the reader is

perSUaded

to

enter into a shared framework of facts and interpreta_

tions.observations and reflections,Just likethe

scientific

pape} and the kind ofapproach towriting found inrepol1_

ing quantitative social research, the ethnographer

typic

allyworks within a writing strategy that is imbued

with

re lism This simply means that the researcher

presents

an authoritative, dispassionate account that represents

an external, objective reality. In this respect, there isvery

littledifference between thewriting stylesofquantital

ive

.

and qualitative researchers. Van Maanen

(1988)

calls

ethnography texts that conform to these characteristics

re list t les These are the common type of ethnographic

writing, though he distinguishes other types (see Key

concept

27.5).

However, thefonn that this realismtakes

differs. VanMaanen distinguishes four characteristics of

realist tales: experiential authority; typical forms ; the

native s point ofview; and interpretive omnipotence.

e

Key concept 7 5

hree forms ethnographic writing

VanMaanen

1988)

hasdistinguished threemajortypesofethnographic

writing

.

1 Realisttoles

pp rentlydefinitive, confident, and dispassionate third person accounts ofa

culture

andof

the behaviour ofmembersofthat culture.

This

isthe mostprevalent

form

ofethnographic writing.

2 Confessionaltales personalized

accountsin which the ethnographeris

fully

implicated inthe data

gathe

ring

and

writing-up

processes .These are

warts-and-all

accountsofthe

trials

and tribulations of

doing

ethnography, Theyhave becomemoreprominentsincethe

1970s

and reflecta

growing emphasis

on

reflex

ivity in qualitative research inparticular.

Several

ofthe sourcesreferred to inChapter17are

confess

ional tales(e.g. Armstrong 1993: Hobbs1993; Giulianotti1995). However, confessional tales are

moreconcernedwithdetailing howresearchwascarried out thanwithpresenting

findings

.Very oftenthe

confessional tale istold inone context(suchasan invited chapter ina bookofsimilar tales), butthe main

findings

arewrittenup in realist tale

form.

3 Impressionisttoles-accounts that placea heavyemphasis on

words,

metaphors, phrasings, and . . . the

expansive

recall

of

fieldwork

experience

Van

Maanen

1988

:

102).

Thereisa

heavy

emphasis on stor

ies

of

dramatic eventsthat

provide

representational meansof cracking open thecultureand the field

worker s

wayof

knowing

it

Van

Maanen1988:

102)

. However, asVanMaanen 1988: 106) notes,

impress ionist tales

re typ

ically

enclosed

within

realist,or perhapsmorefrequently,

confessional

tales,


28/32

Experiential authority

Justas

in

much quantitative research writing, the author

disaPpears from view when writing ethnography. We are

told w h at members of a g ro up say and do, and they are

theonly people directlyvisible in the text. The author pro

videsa narrative

n

which he or she isno longerto be seen.

a result, an impression is conveyed that the findings

presented are what

y

reasonable, similarly placed

researcher would have found . s readers, we have to

accept that this is

what

the ethnographer saw and heard

whileworking as a participant observer or whatever. The

personalsubjectivity of the author/ethnographer s essen

tiallyplayed down y this strategy. The possibility that

the fieldworker may have his or

her

own biases or m y

i ~ v become too involved with the people being studied

issuppressed. To this end, when writing up the results of

their ethnographic work, authors play up their academic

credentials and qualifications, their previous experience,

and so on. All this enhances the degree to which the

author s account can be relied upon. The author/ethno

grapher can then appear as a reliable witness .

A f urther element of exp er iential autho rity is that,

when describing their methods, ethnographersinvariably

makea greatdeal of the intensiveness of the research that

they carried

out they

spent so many months in the field,

had conversations and interviews with countless indi

viduals, wo rk ed h ar d to establis h r ap po rt, and so on.

These features are also added y drawing the reader s

attention to such hardships as the inconvenience of the

fieldwork the da nge r, the p oo r food, the disruptive

effect on normal life, the feelings of isolation and loneli

ness, and so on. Alsoworth mentioning are the extensive

quotations from conversations and interviews that invari

ably form part of the ethnographic report. These are also

obviously important ingredients of the author s use ofevi -

en e to support points. However, they are a mechanism

for establishing the credibility of the report in

that

they

demonstrate the author s ability to encourage people to

talk and so demonstrate that he or she achieved rapport

with them. The copious descriptive

details of

places,

patterns of behaviour, contexts, and so on can also be

viewed as a means of piling on the sense of the author

being an ideally placed witness for alI the findings that

have been uncovered.

Typical forms

The author often writes about typical forms ofinstitutions

or of patterns of behaviour.

hat

is h ap pening here is

that the autho r is g en eralizing about a number of recur

ring features of the group

n

question to create a

typical

form t at that feature takes. He or she may use examples

based on particular incidents or people, but basically the

emphasis is upon the general. For example, in Taylor s

1993) conclusion to her ethnographicresearch on female

drug users, wh ich wa s cited several times in Chapter 17,

we encounter findings such as these; Yetthe control exer

cised over women through the threat to remove their chil

dren highlights a major factor differentiating female and

male d ru g users . Unlike male drug users, female drug

users, like many other women, have two careers: one in

the public sphere and one inthe private, domestic sphere

Taylor 1993: 154) . This ismeant to portraydrug users in

general, so that individuals are important onlyin so far as

they represent such general

tendencies,

The native s point of view

The point has been made several times

that

one of the dis

tinguishing features of much qualitative research s the

commitment to see ing t hrough the eyes of the people

being studied. This isan important feature for qualitative

researchers because it ispan ofa strategyofgettingat the

meaning of social reality from the perspective of those

being stud ied. However, it also represents an importantele

ment increating a sense ofauthoritativeness on the

pan

of

the ethnographer. After all, claiming that he or she takes

the native s point of view and sees through his or her eyes

means that he or she is in an excellent position to speak

authoritatively about the group inquestion. The very fact

that the ethnographer has taken the native s point of view

testifies to the fact that he or she is well placed to write

definitively about the group in question. Realist tales fre

quently include numerous references to the steps taken

by the ethnographer to get close tothe people stud ied and

his or her success in this regard . Thus, for her research on

female drug users, Taylor 1993: 16) writes:

Events Iwitnessed or took part in ranged from the

very routine sitting around drinking coffee and eating

junk food) to accompanying various women on visits

to DSS [Department of SocialSecurity] officesor to

the

HIV

clinic; Iaccompanied them when they were

in court, and even went flat-hunting with one woman.

went shopping with some, helping them choose

clothes for th ir children and presents for their

friends. I visited

them

in their homes. rehabilitation

centres. and maternity wards, sat with them through


29/32

ritingup so i l research

withdrawals, watched

them

using drugs, and

accompanied

them when

they

went

scoring

buying drugs) . Taylor 1993: 16)

Similarly, referring

to

his

study

of a factory in

a

small

Nelsh community, Delbridge

1998: 19)

writes:

stood

out

l i ~

a sore. thumb

. .

, Myactual

participation

i n

the tasks which faced the workers

helped to break down

th e

barriers and several people

approached me over

th e

weeks and told me that

when they actually saw me sitting there alongside

them day after day they began to have some respect

forwhat was doing. It was important to be able to

develop some shared ground.

He goes on to s y

th e

relationships developed over long hours working

on the shop floor, chatting over lunch. moaning about

th e

weather, and so on. In

th e

close-knit village

community, I soon got

involv

in long conversations

about

families,mine

an d

theirs , which was a most

unusual topic in the social world from which Ihad

come the common ground we found in our family

livescemented relationships and founded them on

something

other

than a

student/subject

basis.

Delbridge 1998: 20)

These passages

ar e

very effective in demonstrating

how the

ethnographer

was able gradually to

trans

f o ~ from an outsider to an insider with similar

experi

ences and concerns.

s

such. his credibility as

someone

who can speak authoritatively about these workers and

their

lives is enhanced.

nterpretative omnipotence

When

writing

up

an ethnography, the author rarely

pre

sents possible alternative interpretations of an event

pattern

of behaviour. Instead, the phenomenon in

ques.

tion is presented as having a single meaning or signi.

ficance, which the fieldworker alone has cracked. Indeed

th e

~ v i e n e provided is carefully

marshalled

to s u p p o ~

th e

iingular interpretation that is placed on the

eVent

or pattern of behaviour. We are presented with an

inevitability. It seems obvious or inevitable that someone

would

draw

the inferences

that

the author has drawn

when

faced

wit

such clear-cut evidence.

These four characteristics of realist tales imply that

what

the researcher did as a researcher is only one

pan

of creating a sense of having figured out the nature of

a culture .

t

is also very much to do with how the

researcher represents

what

he or she did through

writing

about

ethnography. For the postmodernist position, any

realist tale is merely one spin that is one version, that

can be or has

been

formulated in relation to the culture in

question.

6

he klist

ssuesto consider for writin up a piece o research

o Have you clearly specifiedyour research questions?

o

Have you clearly indicated how the literature you have read relates to your research questions?

o

Isyour discussion ofthe literature critical and organized so that it isnot justa summary ofwhat you

have read?

o Have you clearly outlined your research design and your research methods. including:

o

why you chose a particular research design?

o why you chose a particular research method?

o

how you selected your research participants?


30/32

o whetherthere

were

any

issues

to dowith cooperation (e.g,

r spo s rates ?

o whyyouimplemented your

research

in,aparticularway(e.g, howthe interviewquestions

relateto your

research

questions,

why you

observed

participants in particular

situations

,why

your

focus

groupguide

asked

thequestionsin a particularwayandorder ?

o

if your

research

required

access

to anorganization. howandonwhat

basis was

agreement

for

access

forthcoming?

o

steps

you tookto ensure that your research

was

ethicallyresponsible;

o howyou

analysed

your

data?

o anydifficulties youencountered in the implementation of your research

approach.

o Have

you presented your datain a mannerthat relates to your research

questions?

o

Doesyour

discussion

ofyour

findings

showhowthey relateto your

research questions?

o

Doesyour

discussion

ofyour

findings

showhow they

shed

light on the literaturethat you

presented?

o

Are the interpretations of the datathat youofferfully supportedwith

tables,

figures,

or

segments

from

transcripts?

o

Ifyouhave

presented tables

and/or

figures, re

they properlylabelledwith a title and

number

?

o Ifyou

have presented tables

and/or

figures

, arethey commented uponin

your discussion?

o Doyour conclusions clearlyallowthereaderto establish what your research contributes to the

literature?

o

Haveyouexplained the limitationsofyour

study?

o

Doyourconclus ions

consist

solely ofa summary ofyour findings? If they do,rewrite them

o

Doyour

conclus

ions

make

clearthe

answers

to your

research questions?

o

Does yourpresentation of the

findings

andthe

discussion

allow aclearargumentandnarratveto

presented

to the

reader?

o

Have

youbrokenup the text in

each

chapterwith appropriate

subheadings?

o Doesyourwriting avoid

sexist

, racist.and

disablist

language?

o

Have

youincludedall appendices thatyoumight needto provide(e.g. interview schedule, letters

requesting

access

, communications with

research

participants)?

o

Have

youchecked that your list of references

includes

the items

referred

to inyourtext?

o

Haveyou

checked

that your listof

references follows precisely

thestylethat yourinstitution

requires?

o

Have

youfollowedyoursupervisor s

suggestions

whenheor she has commented onyourdraft

chapters?

o

Haveyou gotpeopleother thanyour

supervisor

to readyourdraft

chapters

for

you?

o Haveyouchecked to

ensure

that there isnot e

xcessive

useof

jargon?

o Doyouprovide clear sgnposts in the course ofwriting,sothat

readers

areclearaboutwhat to

expect

nextandwhy it is

there

o Have

you

ensured

that yourinstitution s requirements forsubmitting

projects

arefullymet in

terms

of such

issues

asword length(sothat it isneithertoo longnor tooshort)andwhetheranabstract and

tableof

contents

are

required?


31/32

e

o Have you ensured that you do not quote excessively when presenting the literature?

o Have you fully acknowledged the work of others so that you cannot be accusedof plagiarism?

o Isthere a good correspondence between the title of your project and

ts

contents?

o

Have you acknowledged the help of others where this isappropriate e .g, your supervisor.

p op

who may have helped with interviews, people who read your drafts)?

, ,

y points

Good writing is probably just as important as good research practice. Indeed. it is probably better

thought of as a

part

of good research practice.

. .

Clear s tr uc tu re and s ta te me nt of y ou r research t ue stions are important components of writing up

research,

Be sensitive to the ways in w hi ch w ri te rs seek to persuade us of t he ir point s of v ie w.

The study of rhetoric and writing strategies generally teaches us that the writings of scientistsand

social scientists do more than simply report findings. They are designed to convince and to

persuade.

The emphasis on rhetoric is not m ea nt to imply that there isno external social reality; it merely

suggests that our understanding of

that

reality isprofoundly influenced by the ways it is represented

by writers.

While

postmodernism has exerted a particular influence on this last point, writers working within

other

traditions have also contributed to it.

The basic structure

of

and the writing strategies employed in most quantitative and qualitative

research articles are broadly similar.

We need to get away from the idea that rhetoric and the desire to persuade others of the validity of

our work are somehow bad things. They are not. We all want to get our points acrossand to

persuade our readers that we have got things right. The question is do we do it well? Do we make

the best possible case?We all have to persuade others

that

we have got the right angle on things;

the t ri ck is to do it well. So, when you write an essayor dissertation, do bear in

mind

the significance

of your

writing

strategy.

u stions r r vi w

bryman, alan_social reseach methods4325423.pdf

Documents