The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
TEN LIES OF ETHNOGRAPHY: Moral Dilemmas of Field Research
Abstract
As Everett Hughes noted, there is an “underside” to all work. Each job includes ways of doing things that would be inappropriate for those outside the guild to know. Illusions are essential for maintaining occupational reputation, but in the process they create a set of moral dilemmas. So it is with ethnographic work. This article describes the underside of ethnographic work: compromises that one frequently makes with idealized ethical standards. It argues that images of ethnographers—personal and public—are based on partial truths or self-deceptions. The focus is on three clusters of dilemmas: the classical virtues (the kindly ethnographer, the friendly ethnographer, and the honest ethnographer), technical skills (the precise ethnographer, the observant ethnographer, and the unobtrusive ethnographer), and the ethnographic self (the candid ethnographer, the chaste ethnographer, the fair ethnographer, and the literary ethnographer). Changes in ethnographic styles and traditions alter the balance of these deceptions but do not eliminate the need for methodological illusions.
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
Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource
Taylor, S. J., Bogdan, R., & DeVault, M. (2015) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394260485 · Cited by 3,068
Lambert, N. M., Ketzenberger, K. E., & Kemp, C. A. (2014) · Encyclopedia of Special Education · doi:10.1002/9781118660584.ese0122 · Cited by 2,220
(1983) · Cited by 2,165
Membership Roles in Field Research
Adler, P., & Adler, P. (1987) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781412984973 · Cited by 1,644
Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research
McGuigan, F. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1968) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1420816 · Cited by 1,621
Levy, T. S., & Lofland, J. (1974) · Journal of Architectural Education (1947-1974) · doi:10.2307/1423857 · Cited by 1,568
The Sociological Eye: Selected Papers
Robbins, R., & Hughes, E. C. (1972) · The British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.2307/589084 · Cited by 1,132
Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco: Thirtieth Anniversary Edition, with a New Preface by the Author
Rabinow, P. (2016) · University of California Press eBooks · doi:10.1525/9780520933897 · Cited by 1,070
Boys in White: Student Culture in Medical School.
Belknap, I., Becker, H. S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C., & Strauss, A. (1962) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2390949 · Cited by 1,053
Cited by
Qualitative Quality: Eight “Big-Tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research
Tracy, S. J. (2010) · Qualitative Inquiry · doi:10.1177/1077800410383121 · Cited by 7,536
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011) · GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences · doi:10.12759/hsr.36.2011.4.273-290 · Cited by 3,559
Achieving Rigor in Qualitative Analysis: The Role of Active Categorization in Theory Building
Grodal, S., Anteby, M., & Holm, A. L. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0482 · Cited by 646
Cultural ways of constructing knowledge: the role of identities in online group discussions
Öztok, M. (2016) · International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1007/s11412-016-9233-7 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- FINE, G. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1993-10
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 267-294
- ISSN
- 0098-3039 (ISSN-L)
- 0891-2416
- 1552-5414
- OpenAlex
- W2034825337
- Cited by
- 494
- References
- 43
- FWCI
- 16.63
- 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: TEN LIES OF ETHNOGRAPHY: Moral Dilemmas of Field Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/089124193022003001
- The paper
- FINE, G. A. (1993). TEN LIES OF ETHNOGRAPHY: Moral Dilemmas of Field Research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124193022003001
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.
