Could Distributed Peer Review Better Decide Grant Funding?
The landscape of academic grant funding is notoriously competitive and plagued by lengthy, bureaucratic processes, exacerbated by difficulties in finding willing reviewers. Distributed […]
Dr. Liz Przybylski was thinking ahead when she wrote Hybrid Ethnography: Online, Offline, and In Between. They unwittingly predicted that we would […]
Can ethnography, long characterized as a lower tier of evidence in studying drug use, find things other approaches miss?
Steven Lubet set out to investigate whether ethnography’s characteristic reliance on unverified accounts may sometimes produce misinformation. He argues that In any other academic discipline, his findings would have provoked less umbrage and more reinvestigation.
Fact and perception are simply different categories, neither of which is necessarily more important than the other, argues Steve Lubet. . The challenge for ethnographers lies in making clear and careful distinctions between what they have actually seen and what they have only heard about.
No matter how exquisite the details, it is important to separate fact from folklore – which should not require cross examination.
While journalism might at times be seen as a sort of ‘ethnography lite,’ when it comes to checking out the field reporter’s facts it’s much more of a heavy hitter.
Janet Salmons, the methods guru at our sister site MethodSapce, interviewed Dr. Peter Gloviczki about his use of autoethnographic methods.
New revelations about the influential ‘Being Sane in Insane Places’ experiment by David Rosenhan provide a valuable lesson for other social scientists. You never know what you will find once you begin fact-checking sources against available documentation.