Pros Of Macro Theory

2522 Words11 Pages
The merits in terms of outcomes of doing intensive and extended ethnographic research (EER) can be understood through two ways, first through its comparative study against the other method of doing qualitative research or the traditional way of doing normal functionalist positivist hard science research (Tavory & Timmermans, 2009). Second approach would be through the various categorical positive aspects like 4Rs, 4Ss and effects like Interview Effect, Respondent Effect, Field Effect and Situation Effect etc. While (Tavory & Timmermans, 2009) argument in favour of EER is that it goes with a macro-theory in the field to identify social relations with certain purpose and intent. Its attempt towards understanding the existing functional structuralism and terming it as situational analysis (van Velsen, 1967 as cited in (Tavory & Timmermans, 2009)) is one of the double edged criticism of the EER. However, (Burawoy, 1998) argues that this micro analysis of a situation w.r.t. the macro theory is the uniqueness of the approach (EER) against the Grounded Theory Research, were the observer goes without a pre existing theory and tries to evolve a theory out of the situation. Elaborating through his intensive EER of copper mines of Zambia, according to him the case of corporate colonialism may be unique to Zambia but the Zambianisation as a phenomenon is a macro theory and is valid for other case studies. As (Burawoy, 1998) states, “The Extended Case Study Method (EER) applies reflexive science to ethnography in order to extract the general from the unique (Situation Analysis for the Macro theory), to move from the “micro” to the “macro” (Zambia’s corporate Colonialism to Zambianisation) and to connect the present to the past in anticipation... ... middle of paper ... ...hat there are issues of bounded settings and there is a thin line between participant observation and conversations. (Woods, 1979) as cited in (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007) states that data produced out of interview situation have a preconceived analytical orientation. However, at times this could be treated as distinctiveness of the interview situation as a resource and not a problem. They state that positive aspects of interview are that they provide observer to provide verbal stimuli and hence, allow the observer to understand the artificiality and normal behaviour and hence, are actions in diverse circumstances. Additionally, they say that multiple respondents at one time provide audience-based triangulation it matters of ‘what is being said?’ and ‘who speaks’? Finally they caution observers that, interviews should never be treated as ‘valid on their own terms?’
Open Document