ForumQualitativeSozialforschung/Forum:QualitativeSocial

Research,Vol6,No3(2005)
Volume6,No.3,Art.26September2005

QualitativeResearchUnityandDiversity
PaulAtkinson
Abstract:Thepaperarguesthatwhilequalitativeresearchhasbeenflourishinginmanyfieldsofthesocialsciences,it
hasbecomeunhelpfullyfragmentedandincoherent.Equally,therehavedevelopedanumberofspecialistdomainsof
qualitativeresearchthataretoooftentreatedinisolation.Itisarguedthatweneedtoreturntosomefundamental
principlesofethnographicinquirythatrecognisethemultiplemodalitiesofsocialactionandculturalrepresentation,while
locatingthemwithinawiderethnographicframework.Weneedtorecognisetheintrinsic,indigenousprinciplesoforder
andorganisationthatpermeatesocialformsdiscursive,visual,andmaterial.Suchformalethnographyprovidesawayof
renewingclassicideassuchas"groundedtheory","triangulation"and"thickdescription".
Keywords:ethnography,thickdescription,triangulation,groundedtheory,discourse,visualethnography,materialculture
TableofContents
1.Introduction
2.NarrativesandLifeHistories
3.DiscourseandSpokenAction
4.VisualandMaterialCulture
5.RethinkingGeneralPrinciples
References
Author
Citation

1.Introduction
Thereisnoquestionthatqualitativeresearchofmanyvarietieshasflourishedonaglobal
scaleoverthepasttwentyyearsorso.Fromapersonalperspective,Iknowthatwhen
MartynHAMMERSLEYandIfirstmadetheOpenUniversitycourseonethnographythat
subsequentlyledtoourcoauthoredbook(HAMMERSLEY&ATKINSON1983)therewasa
verysparseliteraturefromwhichtodraw.Therewasaseriesoflocaloraltraditions,butlittle

bywayofexplicitmethodologicalreflection.Sincethen,thepositionhaschangedoutofall
recognition.Bythetimeofoursecondedition(HAMMERSLEY&ATKINSON1995)the
methodologicalliteraturehadexpandedexponentially.Sincethenthegrowthinqualitative
methodshascontinued:methodologicalreflectionandwritinghaveflourishedinrecent
years.Qualitativeresearch,inavarietyofforms,hasbeenadvocatedanddiscussedinan
everincreasingnumberofpublications.Fromitsbasesinsuchdisciplinesasanthropology
andsociology,qualitativeresearchhasbecomeprominentinmanydisciplinarycontexts.
Emergentdisciplinessuchasculturalstudiesarethoroughlygroundedinqualitative
research,whileithaspenetratedverymanysubstantivefieldsofresearchsuchas
educationalresearch,organisationalresearchandnursingstudies.Culturalgeography,
discursivepsychology,feministscholarshipandmanyotherdisciplinaryfieldshave
developedandcontributedtodistinctivestrandsinqualitativeresearch.Therearemajor
networksandgroupsofqualitativeresearchpractitionersandmethodologistsinmany
nationalcontexts.WhiletheglobalcharacterofacademicpublishinghasmeantthatEnglish
languageresearchcommunitieshavedominatedmuchofthediscourse,andAmericanwork
hasbeenespeciallyprominent,infacttherearestronganddistinctivenationalaswellas
disciplinarytraditions.Thecharacteranddiversityofsuchworkcanbemappedmostreadily
byinspectingtheoverallscopeanddetailsofcontentsofaseriesofmajoreditedcollections
andhandbooks(e.g.ATKINSON,COFFEY,DELAMONT,LOFLAND&LOFLAND2001
DENZIN&LINCOLN1994,2000SEALE,GOBO,GUBRIUM&SILVERMAN2004
GUBRIUM&HOLSTEIN2002).[1]
Ironically,despiteclassicethnographicappealstoholism,contextandsimilarideas,
qualitative,ethnographicresearchseemstohavebecomeincreasinglyfragmented.Asthe
methodologicalliteraturehasexpanded,ithasalsodiversified.Differentauthorsadoptand
promotespecificapproachestothecollectionandanalysisofdata.Equally,particularkinds
ofdatabecomecelebratedintheprocess:personalnarratives,lifehistoriesandother
documentsoflifefilm,videoandphotographicimagestextsanddocumentarysources
materialcultureandtechnologicalartefactsspokendiscourse.Intheprocesstypesofdata
andcorrespondingtypesofanalysisareelevatedtooccupyaspecialstatus.Theimplication
oftenseemstobethat,say,documentsoflifeprovideespeciallyprivilegedinsights,orthat
visualmaterialsareespeciallysignificant,orthattalkistheformofsocialactionpar
excellence.Consequently,typesofdataandtheirassociatedanalyticstrategiesare
promotedasthesinglepreferredmethodforsocialinquiry,ratherthanstrategieswithina

broaderethnographicapproach.Indeed,theenthusiasmshownforparticularmethodsof
datacollectionandanalysissometimesseemsodd.Thereseemsinprinciplelittleorno
reasonforsocialscientiststodeveloptheirresearchprogrammesonthebasisofone
techniqueoroneresearchstrategyexclusively.Itseemsequallyperverseimplicitlytoregard
methodsasbeingincompetition.[2]
Ihavenoquarrelwithattemptstodefineandpractiseappropriatestrategiesfortheanalysis
ofparticularkindsofdata.Indeed,Iwanttoinsistontheproper,disciplinedapproachtoany
andeverytypeofdata.Equally,Iwanttoinsistthatdatashouldbeanalysed,andnotjust
reproducedandcelebrated(assometimeshappenswithlifehistories,andsomevisual
materials).Mymainmessage,however,isthattheformsofdataandanalysisshouldreflect
theformsofcultureandofsocialaction.Inotherwords,wecollectandanalysepersonal
narrativesandlifehistoriesbecausetheyareacollectionoftypesorformsspokenand
writtenthroughwhichvariouskindsofsocialactivityareaccomplished.Theyare
themselvesformsofsocialactioninwhichidentities,biographies,andvariousotherkindsof
workgetdone.Oneaccordsimportancetonarrativesandnarrativeanalysisbecausethey
areimportantkindsofsocialaction.Inthesamespiritwepayseriousattentiontovisualdata
insofarascultureandactionhavesignificantvisualaspectsthatcannotbeexpressedand
analysedexceptbyreferencetovisualmaterials.Thisisbynomeansequivalenttothe
assumptionthatethnographicfilmorvideoconstitutesanespeciallyprivilegedapproachto
sociologicaloranthropologicalunderstanding.Thesamecanbesaidofotheranalytic
approaches:documentaryanalysisissignificantinsofarasagivensocialsettingisself
documenting,andinwhichimportantsocialactionsareperformed.Textsdeserveattention
becauseoftheirsociallyorganisedandconventionalproperties,andbecauseoftheuses
thattheyareputto,intheirproduction,circulationandconsumption.Thesameistrueof
othermaterialgoods,artefacts,technologiesetc.Theanalysisofdramaturgy,likewise,is
importantinsofarassocialactorsandcollectivitiesengageinsignificantperformative
activitiesbutitshouldnotbetreatedasaprivilegedwaytoapproachallofsociallife.[3]
Ibelieve,therefore,thatitisimportanttoavoidtheessentiallyreductionistviewthattreats
onetypeofdataoroneapproachtoanalysisasbeingtheprimesourceofsocialandcultural
interpretation.Weshouldnot,inotherwords,seektorendersociallifeintermsofjustone
analyticstrategyorjustoneculturalform.Theformsofanalysisshouldreflecttheformsof
sociallife:theirdiversityshouldmirrorthediversityofculturalformstheirsignificanceshould

beinaccordancewiththeirsocialandculturalfunctions.Thismayseemobvious.Butwhile
fewsocialscientistswouldexplicitlyclaimotherwise,implicitlyinmuchcurrentwritingand
discussion,thereverseseemstobetrue.[4]
InreviewinganarrayofdifferentanalyticapproachesIdonotmerelycelebratediversitynor
doIendorseavulgarversionoftriangulationthroughmethodologicalpluralismandsynthesis
(cf.COFFEY&ATKINSON1996).Thereverseistrue:Istresstheimportanceofrendering
thedifferentformalpropertiesofcultureandsocialactionandpreservingtheirdistinctive
qualities.Iwant,therefore,toaffirmthataspectsofcultureandthemundaneorganisationof
sociallifehavetheirintrinsicformalproperties,andthattheanalysisofsociallifeshould
respectandexplorethoseforms.Indoingso,Iamreactingagainstsomeanalytictendencies
thathaveundervaluedanythingthatsmacksofformalanalysis.Majorcommentatorslike
DENZINandLINCOLN(2000),orELLISandBOCHNER(1996)havepromotedanimageof
contemporaryqualitativeresearchthatisrelentlesslyinnovative,alliedtopostmodernist
viewsofsocialinquiry,andradicallydistantfromitsintellectualorigins.Asmycolleaguesand
Ihavesuggestedelsewhere(e.g.DELAMONT&ATKINSON2004ATKINSON,COFFEY&
DELAMONT2003),appealstopostmodernismhave,inmanyinfluentialquarters,devalued
thesystematicanalysisofactionandrepresentations,whileprivilegingrathervagueideasof
experience,evocation,andpersonalengagement.Yetdiscourse,narratives,performances,
encounters,rhetoricandpoeticsallhavetheirintrinsic,indigenousmodesoforganisation.So
toodovisual,textual,materialandotherculturalembodiments.Itisnotnecessarytoendorse
anarrowlystructuralistanalyticperspectiveorendorseundulyrestrictiveformalismsinorder
torecognisetheformalpropertiesoftalk,thecodesofculturalrepresentation,thesemiotic
structuresofvisualmaterials,orthecommonpropertiesofnarrativesanddocumentsoflife.
[5]
Thecurrentstateofqualitativeresearchandresearchmethodsisconfused.Thereisa
gratifyingproliferationofresearchmethods,andtheyhavebeenspreadingtoawiderange
ofsubstantiveresearchareas.Equally,therehasbeenavarietyofrationales,justifications
andtheoreticalunderpinningsforqualitativeresearch.Researchershavebecome
increasinglyweddedtoparticularmethodsofdatacollectionandstrategiesofdataanalysis.
Sowehavepeoplewhoarerestrictedlyexpertin,say,visualmethods,orthemethodsof
visualanthropology.Likewise,thereareresearcherswhoareweddedtoparticularwaysof
reportingsocialresearchthroughformsofpoeticwriting,orthroughmultilayeredtexts,or

realiststyles.Therearenowseveralcontextsinwhich"alternative"formsofrepresentation,
suchas"autoethnographic"reflections,poemsandothergenresofcreativewriting(for
examplessee:ELLIS&BOCHNER1996GOODALL2000fordiscussionsseeATKINSON
&COFFEY1995SPENCER2001).ThejournalQualitativeInquiry,editedbyNorman
DENZIN,isonekeysiteforthepublicationofsuchinnovativematerials.[6]
Takenoverall,thefieldofqualitativeresearchpresentsaconfusingpicture.Themanifest
varietyisnotalwaysrelatedsystematicallyorinaprincipledfashiontoanyparticular
disciplinary,theoreticalorsubstantiveconcern.Someofthecurrentmethodologicalpositions
seemstoadvocatestrategiesofresearchwithoutreferencetotheindigenousmodesof
socialorganisationtheyaredesignedtoaddress.Consequently,itisnecessaryforsocial
researcherstohaveanunderstandingofavarietyofresearchmethods,inordertodojustice
totheequivalentvarietyofculturalforms.Thepaperwillthereforeoutlineandexploresome
particularlyimportantmodesofsocialanalysis,inordertoexaminehowtheyconstructand
reflectspecificculturalforms.Iamnotunmindfulofourinternational,comparativetheme.
ThetendenciesIrefertoarenotuniformlydistributedacrossdifferentnationaland
disciplinarycontexts.Itisclearthatthesocalledpostmodernturnhasbeenespecially
markedinAmericansocialscience,wheredifferentformsofexperimentalandinnovative
socialinquiryhavedeveloped,notleastinthecontextofcommunicationstudiesandcultural
studies.TheyhavecertainlyhadaneffectintheUnitedKingdomandcontinentalEurope,but
toamuchlesserextent.WhileAmericanculturalanthropologyhasbeenpervasively
influencedbythesocalled"crisisofrepresentation"precipitatedbytheliteraryand
discursiveturninanthropology(cf.CLIFFORD&MARCUS1986),Britishsocialanthropology
whilebynomeansimmutablehasbeenfarlessdeflectedfromitspriorpracticesbysuch
fundamentalcritiques.Europeanscholarsaretosomeextentprotectedfromundueinfluence
fromAmerican"post"enthusiasms.Theyhavetheirownindigenousintellectualtraditions.
Thereare,forinstance,strongtraditionsofFrenchdiscourseanalysisandGerman
hermeneuticsthatcanprovideadurablematrixforthereceptionofAngloAmericanideas.
Indeed,IwanttosuggestthatthedisciplinaryandnationaltraditionsofEuropeanresearch
canprovideastrongbasisforarenewedsynthesisofqualitativeresearch.Inthefollowing
sectionsofthispaperIdonotattempttoundertakeacomprehensiveoverviewofqualitative
researchstrategies.InaselectivereviewIhighlightsomeofthewaysinwhich
methodologicalparticularismcanleadtoweakresearch,andhowagenericmethodological
attentiontotheindigenousorganisationconstitutesformsofculture.[7]

2.NarrativesandLifeHistories
Interviewsareincreasinglythemainmodeofqualitativedatacollection,andbiographical
narrativesareamongthemostimportantproductsofsuchresearch.Thecentralityofthe
interviewisevidencedbythesheervolumeof"qualitativeresearch"thatisbasedexclusively
orpredominantlyonextendedinterviews.Themethodologicalliteratureontheconductand
analysisofinterviewshasgrowncorrespondingly(e.g.GUBRIUM&HOLSTEIN2002
HOLSTEIN&GUBRIUM1995RUBIN&RUBIN1995).Thestatusoftheinterviewasa
modeofdatacollectionandtheproperanalysisofthedatageneratedthroughqualitative
interviewingare,however,problematic.AsATKINSONandSILVERMAN(1997)have
argued,socialscientistswhoextolthevirtuesofpersonalinterviewing,andwhobasetheir
researchexclusivelyonsuchdataareindangerofrecapitulatingoneofthekeyfeaturesof
contemporarysociety,ratherthanexaminingandanalysingit.Theyare,ATKINSONand
SILVERMANargued,complicitintheformsof"theinterviewsociety",throughwhich
accountsof"experience"andtherevelationofa"private"emotionallifeareexpectedof
potentiallyanysocietalmember,andactuallyexpectedofanyoneaccordedthestatusof
"celebrity".Thefactthatinterviewsandtheiroutcomesarepervasiveincertainfieldsof
qualitativeresearchdoesnotofitselfguaranteetheirvalue.Someresearchersand
methodologistspromoteinterviewsandtheaccountsgarneredfromthemasenjoyingan
almostuniquestatus.Thepopularityofinterviewingmeansthatthesortsofindividual
accountsandnarrativesthatinterviewsproducearesometimespromotedasconveyinga
specialsignificance.Moreover,thewidespreadmisuseofinterviewderivednarrativesmeans
thatthedataaretoooftentreatedat"facevalue",asifpersonalaccountsgrantedtheanalyst
directaccesstoarealmofthepersonalthatisnotavailablethroughothermeans.Thisis
relatedtotheequallywidespreadviewthatitisthegoalofqualitativeresearchtorepresent
thepersonalmeanings,experiencesandperspectivesofindividualinformants.The
consequencecanbeaversionofsocialinquirythatisdevoidofsocialorganisation,inwhich
categoriessuchas"experience"aretreatedunproblematically.[8]
Suchapproachesto"narrative"payinsufficientattentiontotheworkofanalysts,goingback
severaldecades,thattreatinformants'accountsasaccounts,thatareperformancesthrough
whichinformantsenactbiographical,selfpresentationalandexplanatorywork.Thisisthe
analyticperspectivepromotedbyVOYSEY(1975)inheranalysisofaccountsproducedby
parentsofchildrenwithadisability,andbyGILBERTandMULKAY(1980)intheiranalysisof

scientists'accountsofscientificdiscoveries.Eachoftheseanalyses,inturnreflectingback
thepioneeringobservationsofC.WRIGHTMILLS(1940)onvocabulariesofmotive,
recognisingthenatureofnarrativeaccountsasformsofspeechact.[9]
Weshouldnotcollectanddocumentpersonalnarrativesbecausewebelievethemtohavea
privilegedorspecialquality.Narrativeisnotauniquemodeoforganisingorreporting
experience,althoughitisonepervasiveandimportantwayofsodoing.Narrativeisan
importantgenreofspokenactionandrepresentationineverydaylife,andinmany
specialisedcontexts.Weshould,therefore,bestudyingnarrativeinsofarasitisaparticular
featureofagivenculturalmilieu.Furthermore,narrativesarenotindependentofcultural
conventionsandsharedformats.Theyarenotuniquelybiographicalorautobiographical
materials,andtheycertainlydonotconveyunmediatedprivate"experience".Thisisa
perspectivepowerfullydemonstratedbyPLUMMER(1995),whodemonstratesthateventhe
most"personal"storiesdisplaygenericpropertiesthatreflectcollective,sharedcultural
conventions.Likewise,narrativesdonotconvey"memory"asapsychologicalphenomenon.
Experiences,memories,emotionsandotherapparentlypersonalorprivatestatesare
constructedandenactedthroughculturallysharednarrativetypes,formats,andgenres.
Theyarerelatedtostorytypesmoregenerally.Thereareaffinitieswithotherkindsofstories
ofhistory,mythology,themassmediaandsoon.[10]
Weneed,therefore,toanalysenarrativesandlifematerials,inordertotreatthemas
instancesofsocialactionasspeechactsoreventswithcommonproperties,recurrent
structures,culturalconventionsandrecognisablegenres.Thisis,ofcourse,bynomeansa
novelobservationinitsownright.Manycommentatorshavedrawnattentiontotheformal,
structuralpropertiesofnarrative.KeysourcesincludeCORTAZZI(1993),LABOVand
FANSHEL(1977),MISHLER(1986)andRIESSMAN(1993).Whileitwould,therefore,be
entirelywrongtoaccuseallproponentsof"narrative"analysisaslackingrigourintheirown
approaches,itremainsthecasethattoomanycontemporaryresearcherstaketheirspiritof
enthusiasmwithouttheirsenseofformandstructure.Consequently,thereistoomuchsocial
researchthatcollects,reproducesandcelebratesindividual"stories",withoutgroundingthem
inasustainedanalysisoftheirformsandfunctions.[11]
Moreover,weneedtoregardsuchaccountsassocialperformances,orformsofsocial
action,embeddedwithinorganisationalcontexts,andsociallysharedundertakings.Too

muchofthecontemporarydeploymentofnarrativeisdevoidofsocialorganisationand
context.Indeed,itisoftennotclearinwhatsensesomeformsofnarrativecelebrationare
socialscienceatall.Livesandnarrativevoicesseemtoberecountedinasocialvacuum,
ratherthantheproductsofsociallysharedconventions,constructedinpractical
circumstancesofeverydaylifeandwork,withrealconsequencesforsocialactors(cf.
ATKINSON1997).[12]
Thisisnot,then,anargument"against"narratives.Indeed,itisnotclearthatonecouldin
anymeaningfulsensebefororagainstanyparticularformofsocialactivity.Butmypoint
hereispreciselythat:narrativesandpersonalaccountsareamongavarietyofspokenand
writtensocialactions.Theyare,therefore,inescapablypartofthesubjectmatterof
ethnographicresearch.Weencountervariousformsofstoryinamultiplicityofsocial
settings,fromthedomesticsettingsoffamilylife,throughtotheeverydaysettingsofwork,to
thehighlyspecialistsettingsofscienceandprofessionalexpertise(cf.e.g.CZARNIAWSKA
1997,1998).Weshouldobviouslypayseriousattentiontothedistinctivefeaturesof
narratives,andhowtheyareusedtoachievepracticaloutcomes:weshouldstudyformand
function,inotherwords.Butweshoulddosoinrecognitionofthefactthatnarrativesarebut
oneexampleofstructuredperformancethroughwhicheverydaylifeisenacted.[13]

3.DiscourseandSpokenAction
Parallelremarkscanbemadeconcerningotherformsofspokenactivity,althoughthe
potentialcriticismhereisratherdifferentfromtheoneIhavejustsketchedinrelationto
narrative.Herewefindacleardangerofovertechnicalattentiontodetailed,formal
propertieswithinsufficientattentiontowiderethnographicinterests.Thecollectionand
analysisofspokenmaterialsisonedomainwhereoverspecialisationisadanger,then.[14]
Thereislittleneedinthiscontexttoexpandupontheverygreatimpactofconversation
analysisanddiscourseanalysis.Formajorsourcesanddiscussions,see:ATKINSONand
HERITAGE(1984)BODENandZIMMERMAN(1991)GOODWIN(1981)JAWORSKIand
COUPLAND(1999)POTTER(1996)POTTERandWETHERELL(1987).Conversation
analysishashadimplicationswellbeyondtheconfinesofitshighlyspecialisedresearch
networks,anditsearlyassociationswithethnomethodology.Theanalysisofnaturally
occurringlanguageandspokenactionhasbecomeatakenforgrantedfeatureofsocial
researchinmultiplecontexts.Thereis,however,acleardangeroftreatinglanguageanalysis

asbeingaselfcontainedandselfjustifyingactivity.Weshouldnotallowspeechactsandthe
organisationofdiscoursetooccupyaselfcontained,separatedomainofsocialanalysis.We
need,bycontrast,toensurethattheanalysisofspokenlanguageremainsfirmlyembedded
instudiesoforganisationalcontext,processesofsocialisation,routinesofwork,personal
transformation,peopleprocessingandsoon.Spokenlanguagehasitsownintrinsicformsof
organisation.Indeed,itdemonstratesadenselystructuredorganisationateverylevel,
includingthemostfinelygrained.Itisimportant,however,thatdiscourseanalysis,
conversationanalysis,discursivepsychologyandthelikearenottreatedasanalyticendsin
theirownright,andarenotintellectuallydivorcedfromotheraspectsofethnographicinquiry.
Theexpertknowledgerequiredshouldnotberegardedasaspecialisminitsownrightand
independentofwidersociologicaloranthropologicalcompetence.Theconventionsof
languageuseneedtobeanalysed,therefore,inrelationtomoregeneralissuesofidentity,
theinteractionorder,moralworkandtheorganisationofsocialencounters.Idonotmeanto
implythatsuchapplicationsareentirelymissing.Onthecontrary,theremanyexamplesof
conversation,discourseorsimilaranalyticattentiontospokenactivityembeddedwithinmore
generalethnographicinquiry(e.g.ATKINSON&DREW1979MAYNARD2003PERKYL
1995SILVERMAN1997).ButIdowanttodrawattentiontothefactthatmanyofeventhese
exemplarspayalmostexclusiveattentiontotheorganisationoftalk,andrestalmost
exclusivelyontheanalysisoftranscribedmaterials.Theythereforedemonstrateasingle
mindedrelianceonjustonemodeofsocialorganisationandoneanalyticstrategy.Wealso
needtoremindourselvesthattheoriginalinspirationforconversationanalysislayinHarvey
SACKS'suseoftranscribedconversationasanobjettrouv,demonstratingthepropertiesof
organisationandorder.Buttheywerenotintendedtooccupyauniquelyprivilegedplacein
thesociologicalanalysisofpervasiveorderliness(SILVERMAN1998).Theexampleof
discourseanalysisandconversationanalysisdemonstratestherecurrentneedtopayclose
attentiontotheformalpropertiesofsocialaction.[15]

4.VisualandMaterialCulture
Thecollectionandanalysisofvisualmaterialstend,unhelpfully,tobetreatedasaspecialist
domain.Theproductionofethnographicfilmhas,ofcourse,alonghistory,thoughithas
oftenbeenoddlydivorcedfromthemainstreamtextualpracticesoftheethnographic
monograph.Theuseofphotographyforethnographicpurposeshasalsobeenrelegatedtoa
somewhatspecialistsubfield(whereithasnotbeenrelegatedtomereillustrationofthe

writtenmonograph).Specialistcommentariesonvisualmethodshavehelpedtomakethem
especiallyprominentinrecentyears(e.g.BALL&SMITH2001BANKS2001EMMISON&
SMITH2000LOIZOS1992PINK2000ROSE2001RUBY2000).Inrecentyearsthe
developmentofsmalldigitalcamcordersandthedevelopmentofdigitalphotographyhave
createdanenormousrangeofpossibilitiesforethnographersinthefield.Twothingsfollow.
Thefirstisthat"visual"anthropologyandsociologyshouldnotbetreatedasseparategenres
orspecialisms.Therearemanyaspectsofculturethatareintrinsicallyvisual.Manycultural
domainsandartefactscanonlybegraspedthroughtheirvisualrepresentationsandthe
structuredpropertiesoftheirvisualcodes.Therearemanysocialphenomenathatcanand
shouldbeanalysedintermsoftheirappearancesandperformancesthatmaybecapturedin
visualterms.Thesearenot,however,separablefromthesocialsettingsinwhichsuch
phenomenaaregeneratedandinterpreted.Theyshouldnotbeexploredpurelyas"visual"
topics,butasintegraltoawidevarietyofethnographicprojects.Visualphenomena,the
mundaneandtheselfconsciouslyaesthetic,havetheirintrinsicmodesoforganisation.One
doesnotneedtoendorsethemostdeterministicversionsofsemioticsorstructuralismto
recognisethatvisualcultureembodiesconventionsandcodesorrepresentation.Thereare
culturallyorganisedaestheticandformalprinciplesthereareconventionalformsof
representationandexpression(MANNING1989,2001,2004).Attentiontovisualculturealso
impliesaseriousattentiontotheethnoaestheticsoftheproducersandconsumersofvisual
materials.Weneednotonlyto"read"thevisual,butalsounderstandethnographicallyhowit
isreadbymembersofthesocialworldorcultureinquestion.[16]
Thestudyofmaterialgoodsandartefacts,technologyandotherphysicalaspectsofmaterial
culturedeservessystematicattentioninmanyethnographiccontexts,anditisreceiving
increasedmethodologicalattention(TILLEY1990,1991,2001)butistoooftenrelegatedto
specialised,esotericstudiesortohighlyspecifictopics.Thelatterincludestudiesof
technologyandinventions,ofveryparticularkindsofphysicaldisplaysuchasmuseums
andartgalleriesandhighlyrestrictedkindsofartefactssuchasreligious,ritualandartistic
objects.Itisvitalthatthestudyofphysicalobjects,memorials,technologiesandsoonbe
thoroughlyincorporatedintomoregeneralfieldstudiesofworkorganisations,informal
settings,culturalproduction,domesticsettingsandsoon(MILLER1987JULIER2000).
Artefactsandtechnologiesarethemselvesunderstood,usedandinterpretedbyeveryday
socialactors.Theyareusedtodocumentandrecordthepastandindeedtoconstructthe
pastandthereismuchtobelearnedfromthelocal,situated"ethnoarchaeology"ofthe

materialpast(EDWARDS2001MACDONALD2002MACDONALD&FYFE1996).Issues
ofpracticalutilityandaestheticvalueintersect.Ideasofauthenticitymaybebroughttobear
onartefactsandassemblages.Theymaybeusedtodisplayandwarrantindividualand
collectiveidentities:the"collection"(personalornational),forinstance,isexpressiveoftaste,
identity,commitmentandenthusiasm.Thematerialgoodsoffashionandconspicuous
consumptionarelikewiseexpressiveofstatusandaspirations.Moregenerally,thisleadstoa
considerationofmaterialculture.Thematerialembodimentofcultureandthecultural
connotationsofthingshavebecomeprominentinrecentculturalanthropologicalanalyses.
Recentexampleshaveincludedexaminationsof:homecomputers,personalstereos,motor
cars,photographs,food,memorials.Theseaccountstranscendandtransformthemundane
materialworldintodomainsofsignification.Itisimportantforthegeneralethnographic
enterprisetoincorporatesuchperspectives.Equally,itisimportanttorecognisethatmaterial
goodsandartefactscanhavetheirown,indigenousordersofsignificationandgenresof
representation.[17]
Thematerialorderisalsoencodedinsystemsofplacesandspaces.Mostethnographic
reportageseemsoddlylackinginphysicallocation.Manysociologicalandanthropological
accountshavesketchyaccountsofthebuiltenvironmentwithinwhichsocialeventsand
encounterstakeplace.Thetreatmentofspaceistoooftenrestrictedtoaspectsofhuman
geography,urbanstudies,andarchitecture.Itneedstobeintegratedwithinmoregeneral
ethnographicaccounts.Butethnoarchitectureisasweknowfromsomeanthropological
accountssignificantindefiningthespacesandstylesofeverydayliving.Builtspaces
providesymbolicaswellasphysicalboundaries.Theyphysicallyenshrinecollective
memoriesaswellasmorepersonalbiographicalandemotionalwork.Homesareendowed
withemotionalandculturalvaluethroughtheexpressionoftasteandculturalcapital,the
celebrationofhistoricalauthenticity,orofmodernminimalism.Publicspacesalsoembody
tacitculturalassumptions:abouttheclassificationandprocessingofpeopleandthings
aboutcommercialandprofessionaltransactionsaboutpoliticalprocessesandcitizenship.
Theethnographicexplorationofplacesandspacesincludesthecommercialtransformation
ofthemthroughtourismandheritagework:thetransmutationofdowntownsand
waterfrontstherecreationofindustrialpastsintoleisureandentertainmenttheconstruction
ofreplicasandspacesfor"experience"(DICKS2000LASH&URRY1994URRY1990,
1995).[18]

5.RethinkingGeneralPrinciples
Itisnecessaryforethnographerstopayattentiontotheanalyticimperativesofsuchsocially
sharedcodes,conventionsandstructures.Theformsofsocialandculturallifecallfor
equivalentanalyses.Ihaveoutlinedjustsomeanalyticconsiderationsthatcanandshould
informgeneralqualitative,ethnographicinquiry,andshouldnotberestrictedtospecialised
strategies.Tothemcouldbeaddedyetmore:sound,noiseandmusicprovideimportant
temporalandaestheticcomponentstoeverydaylife,forinstance(DeNORA2000),while
sensesofsmell,tasteandtouchinformourunderstandingandrecollectionofeverydaylife
(cf.STOLLER1989).Ihavebeenatpainstopointoutthatweneedtodotwothings.First,
weneedtoretainastructural,formalsenseofthemultipleorderingsoftalk,action,things,
placesandsoon.Secondly,wecannotaffordtoallowsuchanalysistobecomethepreserve
ofsmallcoteriesofspecialists,whileageneralised"qualitativeresearch"proceeds
uninformedbysuchformalanalysis.[19]
Thesemethodologicalprinciplesgiveusawayofaddressingsomefundamental
methodologicalpreceptsinadisciplinedway.HerbertBLUMERenunciatedtheprinciplethat
researchshouldbe"faithful"tothephenomenaunderinvestigation(BLUMER1954
HAMMERSLEY1989).Initsmostgeneralformthismethodologicalpreceptseemstobegall
theimportantquestions,seemingtoimplythatonecanknowthephenomenapriortotheir
investigation.Anaivelynaturalistinterpretationisclearlyinappropriate.Myformulation
retrievesforBLUMER'sprincipleamoremethodologicallypreciseformulationamore
restrictedone,butamorefruitfulapproach.Itimpliesmerelythatfidelityto"thephenomena"
meanspayingattentiontotheformsandthemediathroughwhichphenomenaareenacted,
encodedorembodied.Itmeanspreservingandrespectingthedifferentlayersofactionand
representationthroughwhichculturesareenactedandsocialactionisperformed.[20]
Italsogivesaparticularrenderingofthenotionofthickdescription(GEERTZ1973).Clifford
GEERTZ'sformulationofthattermissusceptibletomultipleinterpretationsandcanbe
translatedintovariousresearchpractices.Somevulgarsimplificationsofitrefertriviallyand
erroneouslymerelytotherichnessofdetailandconcretenessofculturaldescriptionson
whichethnographicworkrests.Moresophisticatedversionsrefertotheoverdetermined
characterofculture,withmultipleframesofreferenceandperspective.Myownglossisto
suggestthatwhateverelse"thickdescription"couldmean,itshouldincludesystematic

referencetothemultipleformsofculturallife,producingculturaldescriptionsthatpreserve
thosedistinctiveforms.ItthustakesGEERTZ's"textual"approachtoculturalanalysis
seriously,byinsistingthatthe"texts"needtobeanalysedintermsoftheirmaterialand
conventionalproperties.Italsotransformstheemphasison"culture"intoanequalstresson
socialaction.[21]
Thisapproachcanbeextendedtoacommentaryonversionsofgroundedtheory(GLASER
&STRAUSS1967).Again,therearemultipleversionsofgroundedtheory,andtheyhave
beenthoroughlydocumented.Itisnoticeable,however,thatmostofthemaremorearticulate
onwhatbeing"grounded"meansthanontheproperanalysisofdifferenttypesofdata.In
somequarters,therefore,analysisseemstoconsistofglorifiedcontentanalysis,translated
intodifferentkindsofthematicandtheoretical"coding".Whilegroundedtheoryisclearlynot
intendedtoberestrictedtoanyonecategoryofdataandisnotevenrestrictedto
qualitativeresearchinpracticeitusedtodescribeasomewhatamorphousnotionof
qualitativedata,usuallyfieldnotesandinterviewtranscripts.Thereisnormallylittleattempt
topreservethenarrativestructuresorotherformsofrepresentation.Attheirworst,vulgar
versionsof"groundedtheory"canresultinakindofanalyticblender,generatingblandly
homogenisedcategoriesandinstances.Webelievethatinonesenseallproductive
sociologicalandanthropologicalanalysisis"grounded":itdependsonprocessesof
abductivereasoninginthecreativeinterplaybetweendataandideas,concreteinstances
andgenericconcepts.Inamorespecificsense,webelievethatanalysesshouldbe
"grounded"inthemultipleformsandrepresentationsofsociallife,andshouldremain
sensitivetothoseforms.Inthatsense,therefore,groundedtheorywouldbegroundedinthe
multiplelayersofcodes,conventions,structuresandtextsofeverydaysociallife.Itwould
preservetheirdistinctivecharacterandtheirorderings,notwashouttheirintrinsicproperties.
[22]
Whatisneededisaradicalrenewalofoursensitivitytoformsandmodesoforganisationthat
interactionistandinterpretativesociologyhasinprinciplebeenaddressingforthepasteighty
yearsandmore(ATKINSON&HOUSLEY2003).Wecanretrievesomesenseofthat
analytictraditionbyconnectingitwithcontemporarynotionsofcomplexity.Contemporary
complexitytheoryprovidesapowerfulsetofanalyticmetaphorsforcomprehendingthe
emergentpropertiesofsocialphenomenaandtheirdiverselevelsoforderandmeaning.It
recallsclassicinteractionistandinterpretativeideasofsocialemergenceandtheprocesses

ofsociallife.Acontemporaryethnographythatissensitivetotheindigenousordersofaction,
meaningandrepresentationcanprovideareflexiveandcomplexvehicleforexploringsocial
organisationandthefluidityoflatemodernity.Indeed,Iwanttoinsistthatwecontinueto
needformalmethodsandformalanalysespreciselybecausetheyallowustograspthe
complexordersofrepresentation,action,organisationandmeaningthatconstitute
contemporarysociallife.[23]
Whatevertheepistemologicalvalidityoftheoriesofpostmodernismingeneral,itseemsto
methattheinterpretationofpostmodernisminthecurrentmethodologicalliteratureisin
manywaysunhelpful,evenpernicious.Toomanyadvocatesofpostmodernqualitative
research,anditsequivalents,repeatedlyrobsociallifeandhenceitsinvestigationofany
senseoforder.Itisclearlynotnecessarytoespouseanythingresemblingapositivist
intellectualstanceinordertorecognisethatsociallifehasitsprinciplesoforder,andthat
thoseorderscanbeexaminedinprincipledways.Methodologicalapproachesthatwashout
thoseindigenousordersofactionandrepresentationemptythesocialworldofmanyofits
mostsignificant(andsignifying)phenomena.Itwouldbeapityiftheveryobvioussuccessof
qualitativeresearchinmanyfieldsweretoresultinaweakenedversionofsocialscienceby
failingtopaydueattentiontoitsdisciplinaryroots,anditsdisciplinedattentiontosocial
forms.[24]
ThisisintellectualworkthatcanandshouldbeundertakenwithespecialvigourinEurope.In
nospiritofgeneralantiAmericanfeeling,Inotethattheglobalproductionofqualitative
methodsisdominatedbyAmericanperspectives.NowtheAmericantraditionshave
undoubtedlyprovidedmanyofthemainfoundationsforqualitativeresearch.Butthereare
alsoprofoundweaknessesinthegeneralclimateofAmericanmethodologyatthepresent
time.Toooften,forinstance,thesocialandthepoliticalaretranslatedintothepersonal.
Likewise,therestlesssearchfornewparadigmsandinnovationhasresultedinaproliferation
ofmethodologicalpronouncementsandprescriptions,thatoftenbreakfreeofany
disciplinarybasis.Qualitativeresearchinsuchacontextistoooftentreatedasaself
justifyingactivity,ratherthanamountingtoageneralapproachtodoingsystematicsocial
science,andaddressingintrinsicallysignificantresearchtopics.InEurope,itispossibleto
developcollectiveunderstandingsofqualitativeresearchthatcanreassertsomeofthe
sharedstrengthsofoursocialsciencetraditionsanddisciplines,drawingonthebestof

AngloAmericanwork,butalsoavoidingsomeoftheselfindulgentandilldisciplinedwork
thattoooftenspoilsit.[25]

References
Atkinson,J.Maxwell&Drew,Paul(1979).OrderinCourt:TheOrganizationofVerbalExpressioninJudicialSettings.
London:Macmillan.
Atkinson,J.Maxwell&Heritage,John(Eds.)(1984).StructuresofSocialAction:StudiesinConversationAnalysis.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Atkinson,Paul(1997).Narrativeturnorblindalley?QualitativeHealthResearch,7,325344.
Atkinson,Paul&CoffeyAmanda(1995).Realismanditsdiscontents:thecrisisofculturalrepresentationinethnographic
texts.InBarbaraAdam&StuartAllen(Eds.),TheorisingCulture(pp.10339).London:UCLPress.
Atkinson,Paul&Housley,William(2003).Interactionism.London:Sage
Atkinson,Paul&Silverman,David(1997).Kundera'sImmortality:Theinterviewsocietyandtheinventionoftheself.
QualitativeInquiry,3,304325.
Atkinson,Paul,Coffey,Amanda&Delamont,Sara(2003).KeyThemesinQualitativeResearch.WalnutCreekCA:
AltaMira.
Atkinson,Paul,Coffey,Amanda,Delamont,Sara,Lofland,John&Lofland,Lyn(Eds.)(2001).HandbookofEthnography.
London:Sage.
Ball,Mike&Smith,Greg(2001).Technologiesofrealism?Ethnographicusesofphotographyandfilm.InPaulAtkinson,
AmandaCoffey,SaraDelamont,JohnLofland&LynLofland(Eds.),HandbookofEthnography(pp.302219).London:
Sage.
Banks,Marcus(2001).VisualMethodsinSocialResearch.London:Sage.
Blumer,Herbert(1954).Whatiswrongwithsocialtheory?AmericanSociologicalReview,19,310.
Boden,Deirdre&Zimmerman,Don(Eds.)(1991).TalkandSocialStructure.Cambridge:Polity.
Coffey,Amanda&Atkinson,Paul(1996).MakingSenseofQualitativeData:ComplementaryStrategies.London:Sage.
Cortazzi,Martin(1993).NarrativeAnalysis.London:Falmer.
Czarniawska,Barbara(1997).NarratingtheOrganization:DramasofInstitutionalIdentity.Chicago:UniversityofChicago
Press.
Czarniawska,Barbara(1998).ANarrativeApproachtoOrganizationStudies.ThousandOaksCA:Sage.
Delamont,Sara&Atkinson,Paul(2004).Qualitativeresearchandthepostmodernturn.InMelissaA.Hardy&Alan
Bryman(Eds.),HandbookofDataAnalysis(pp.667681).London:Sage.
DeNora,Tia(2000).MusicinEverydayLife.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Denzin,NormanK.&Lincoln,YvonnaS.(Eds.)(1994).HandbookofQualitativeResearch.ThousandOaksCA:Sage.

Denzin,NormanK.&Lincoln,YvonnaS.(Eds.)(2005).HandbookofQualitativeResearch,2ndedition.ThousandOaks
CA:Sage.
Dicks,Bella(2000).Heritage,PlaceandCommunity.Cardiff:UniversityofWalesPress.
Edwards,Elizabeth(2001).RawHistories:Photographs,AnthropologyandMuseums.Oxford:Berg.
Ellis,Carolyn&Bochner,Arthur(Eds.)(1996).ComposingEthnography.WalnutCreekCA:AltaMira.
Emmison,Michael&Smith,Philip(2000).ResearchingtheVisual.London:Sage.
Geertz,Clifford(1973).TheInterpretationofCultures.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Gilbert,Nigel&Mulkay,Michael(1980).OpeningPandora'sBox:ASociologicalAccountofScientists'Discourse.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Glaser,Barney&Strauss,AnselmL.(1967).TheDiscoveryofGroundedTheory.Chicago:Aldine.
Goodall,H.Lloyd(2000).WritingtheNewEthnography.WalnutCreekCA:AltaMira.
Goodwin,Charles(1981).ConversationalOrganization:InteractionBetweenSpeakersandHearers.NewYork:Academic
Press.
Gubrium,JaberF.&Holstein,JamesA.(Eds.)(2002).HandbookofInterviewResearch:ContextandMethod.Thousand
OaksCA:Sage.
Hammersley,Martyn(1989).TheDilemmaofQualitativeMethod:HerbertBlumerandtheChicagoTradition.London:
Routledge.
Hammersley,Martyn&Atkinson,Paul(1983).Ethnography:PrinciplesinPractice.London:Tavistock.
Hammersley,Martyn&Atkinson,Paul(1995).Ethnography:PrinciplesinPractice,2ndedition.London:Routledge.
Holstein,JamesA.&Gubrium,JaberF.(1995).TheActiveInterview.ThousandOaksCA:Sage.
Jaworski,Adam&Coupland,Nikolaus(Eds.)(1999).TheDiscourseReader.London:Routledge.
Julier,Guy(2000).TheCultureofDesign.London:Sage.
Labov,William&Fanshel,David(1977).TherapeuticDiscourse:PsychotherapyasConversation.NewYork:Academic
Press.
Lash,Scott&Urry,John(1994).EconomiesofSignsandSpace.London:Sage.
Loizos,Peter(1992).InnovationinEthnographicFilm.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.
Macdonald,Sharon(2002).BehindtheScenesattheScienceMuseum.Oxford:Berg.
Macdonald,Sharon&Fyfe,Gordon(Eds.)(1996).TheorisingMuseums.Oxford:Blackwell.
Manning,Peter(1987).SemioticsandFieldwork.ThousandOaksCA:Sage.
Manning,Peter(2001).Semiotics,semanticsandethnography.InPaulAtkinson,AmandaCoffey,SaraDelamont,John
Lofland&LynLofland(Eds.),HandbookofEthnography(pp.145159),London:Sage.
Manning,Peter(2004).Semiotics.InMelissaHardy&AlanBryman(Eds.),HandbookofDataAnalysis(pp.567587).
London:Sage.

Maynard,DouglasW.(2003).GoodNews,BadNews:ConversationalOrderinEverydayTalkandClinicalSettings.
Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Miller,Daniel(1987).MaterialCultureandMassCommunication.Oxford:BasilBlackwell.
Mills,C.Wright(1940).Situatedactionsandvocabulariesofmotive.AmericanSociologicalReview,5,43952.
Mishler,Elliot(1986).ResearchInterviewing:ContextandNarrative.CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Perkyl,Anssi(1995).AIDSCounselling:InstitutionalInteractionandClinicalPractice.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Pink,Sarah(2001).DoingVisualEthnography:Images,MediaandRepresentationinResearch.London:Sage.
Plummer,Ken(1995).TellingSexualStories:Power,ChangeandSocialworlds.London:Routledge.
Potter,Jonathon&Wetherell,Margaret(1987).DiscourseandSocialPsychology:BeyondAttitudesandBehaviour.
London:Sage.
Rose,Gillian(2001).VisualMethodologies.ThousandOaksCA:Sage
Rubin,HerbertJ.&Rubin,IreneS.(1995).QualitativeInterviewing:TheArtofHearingData.ThousandOaksCA:Sage.
Ruby,Jay(2000).PicturingCulture:ExplorationsofFilmandAnthropology.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Seale,Clive,Gobo,Giampietro,Gubrium,JaberF.&Silverman,David(Eds.)(2004).QualitativeResearchPractice.
London:Sage.
Silverman,David(1997).DiscoursesofCounselling:HIVCounsellingasSocialInteraction.London:Sage.
Silverman,David(1998).HarveySacks:SocialScienceandConversationAnalysis.Oxford:Polity.
Spencer,Jonathon(2001).Ethnographyafterpostmodernism.InPaulAtkinson,AmandaCoffey,SaraDelamont,John
Lofland&LynLofland(Eds.),HandbookofEthnography(pp.443452).London:Sage.
Stoller,Paul(1989).TheTasteofEthnographicThings.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.
Tilley,Michael(Ed.)(1990).ReadingMaterialCulture:Structuralism,HermeneuticsandPostStructuralism.Oxford:
Blackwell.
Tilley,Michael(1991).MaterialCultureandText:TheArtofAmbiguity.London:Routledge.
Tilley,Michael(2001).Ethnographyandmaterialculture.InPaulAtkinson,AmandaCoffey,SaraDelamont,JohnLofland
&LynLofland(Eds.),HandbookofEthnography(pp.258272).London:Sage.
Urry,John(1990).TheTouristGaze:LeisureandTravelinContemporarySocieties.London:Sage.
Urry,John(1995).ConsumingPlaces.London:Routledge.
Voysey,Margaret(1975).AConstantBurden:TheReconstitutionofFamilyLife.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.

Author
PaulATKINSONisDistinguishedResearchProfessorofSociologyatCardiffUniversity,andisAssociateDirectorofthe
ESRCCentreforEconomicandSocialAspectsofGenomics(CESAGen).HeiscoeditoroftheSagejournalQualitative
ResearchandwascoeditoroftheHandbookofEthnography(Sage).Hisbooksinclude:EverydayArias(AltaMira)

MedicalTalkandMedicalWork(Sage)TheEthnographicImagination(Routledge)makingSenseofEthnographicTexts
(Sage)MartynHAMMERSLEYandPaulATKINSON,Ethnography:PrinciplesinPractice(Routledge)AmandaCOFFEY
andPaulATKINSONMakingSenseofQualitativeData(Sage)SaraDELAMONTandPaulATKINSON,Fighting
Familiarity(Hampton)PaulATKINSON,AmandaCOFFEYandSaraDELAMONT,KeyThemesinQualitativeResearch
(AltaMira),PaulATKINSONandWilliamHOUSLEY,Interactionism(Sage).
Contact:
PaulAtkinson
CardiffSchoolofSocialSciences
GlamorganBuilding
KingEdwardVIIAvenue
CardiffCF103WT
Wales,UnitedKingdom
Email:AtkinsonPA@Cardiff.ac.uk

Citation
Atkinson,Paul(2005).QualitativeResearchUnityandDiversity[25paragraphs].ForumQualitativeSozialforschung/
Forum:QualitativeSocialResearch,6(3),Art.26,http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114fqs0503261.