The DOI matches its Crossref record; 92 of the 92 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Revisits: An Outline of a Theory of reflexive ethnography
Abstract
This paper explores the ethnographic technique of the focused revisit—rare in sociology but common in anthropology—when an ethnographer returns to the site of a previous study. Discrepancies between earlier and later accounts can be attributed to differences in: (1) the relation of observer to participant, (2) theory brought to the field by the ethnographer, (3) internal processes within the field site itself, or (4) forces external to the field site. Focused revisits tend to settle on one or another of these four explanations, giving rise to four types of focused revisits. Using examples, the limits of each type of focused revisit are explored with a view to developing a reflexive ethnography that combines all four approaches. The principles of the focused revisit are then extended to rolling, punctuated, heuristic, archeological, and valedictory revisits. In centering attention on ethnography-as-revisit sociologists directly confront the dilemmas of participating in the world they study—a world that undergoes (real) historical change that can only be grasped using a (constructed) theoretical lens.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Bourdieu, P. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9781503621749 · Cited by 17,271
An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology.
Camic, C., Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1993) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074573 · Cited by 9,324
Mills, C. W. (1959) · The Mississippi Valley Historical Review · doi:10.2307/1891592 · Cited by 8,191
The Death and Life of Great American Cities
Jacobs, J. (2015) · Readings in Planning Theory · doi:10.1002/9781119084679.ch4 · Cited by 8,033
(1986) · University of California Press eBooks · doi:10.1525/9780520946286 · Cited by 5,607
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.
Hesse, M., & Popper, K. R. (1965) · The Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2218271 · Cited by 4,189
Europe and the People without History
Gran, P., & Wolf, E. R. (1984) · The History Teacher · doi:10.2307/493157 · Cited by 3,799
Burawoy, M. (1998) · Sociological Theory · doi:10.1111/0735-2751.00040 · Cited by 2,916
Self-citationTales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography
Roufs, T. G., & van Maanen, J. (1992) · American Indian Quarterly · doi:10.2307/1185464 · Cited by 2,606
Cited by
Theory Construction in Qualitative Research: From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012) · Sociological Theory · doi:10.1177/0735275112457914 · Cited by 4,349
`How many cases do I need?': On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research
Small, M. L. (2009) · Ethnography · doi:10.1177/1466138108099586 · Cited by 2,023
Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M. J. (2006) · Theory and Society · doi:10.1007/s11186-006-9003-z · Cited by 892
The Longitudinal Qualitative Interview
Hermanowicz, J. C. (2013) · Qualitative Sociology · doi:10.1007/s11133-013-9247-7 · Cited by 216
Metadata
- Authors
- Burawoy, M.
- Venue
- American Sociological Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-10
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 645-679
- ISSN
- 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-8271
- OpenAlex
- W2325997526
- Cited by
- 586
- References
- 92
- FWCI
- 33.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Revisits: An Outline of a Theory of reflexive ethnography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/000312240306800501
- The paper
- Burawoy, M. (2003). Revisits: An Outline of a Theory of reflexive ethnography. American Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240306800501
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.