The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Ethnographic Paradigm(s)
Abstract
This paper owes its inception to Fritz Mulhauser of the National Institute of Education who asked me to prepare a paper on the comparative uses of school ethnography as part of my activities as a member of NIE's Organization Research Study Group. Karl Weick, then chairman of this study group, encouraged me in this effort. Weick's metaphoric use of loose coupling to describe the structure of school bureaucracies reminded me of those days in anthropology when a well-turned metaphor did not compete with quantitative modes for communicating. At a conference on ethnographic methodology, sponsored by the Organization Research Study Group, Murray Wax gave additional shape to this paper when he spoke of writing up one's field notes as a kind of dialoguing with one's anthropological ancestors. John Van Maanen provided another important impetus when he suggested that I frame my views on the ethnographic craft in a historical perspective.
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
Cited by
Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quantitative and Qualitative Research
FIRESTONE, W. A. (1987) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x016007016 · Cited by 738
Metadata
- Authors
- Sanday, P. R.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1979-12
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 527
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2087621708
- Cited by
- 387
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.32
- 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
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.