I have gone over the readings and back again. I have been writing and erasing my thoughts for the past hour, trying to come up with something interesting and insightful to say. I have nothing. After attempting to discuss the difference between case study and ethnography and finding it obvious and redundant, I erased it (one focuses more on the individual in context and the other on a culture in context; the difference is in the choice to study subjects versus an environment? right? but what else?) I then tried a comparison between L & A's and Moss and Newkirk's expectations of the outcomes of these research methods, erased it, gone. I still can't rationalize why the results of qualitative analysis are to take on the characteristics of quantitative analysis. L & A are consistent in the fact that research is only valid if replicable. Yet, both case study and ethnography, based on methods of subject selection, data collection, analysis, and reporting seem less concerned with what makes a individual or group general and more so with what makes it unique via context and perspective, making exact replication impossible. Why does qualitative research not have its own measures of validity?