Posted for Diane - Ethnography

[Diane's having problems posting to the site this week, so I'm posting this for her.]

Topic: Ethnography
It’s always interesting for me to see any research methodology in the research taxonomy in LA, noting that this methodology is a step “tighter” on the continuum from case study. I suppose that’s because the focus or context is a specific and well-defined environment. I also was very interested in the way that LA kept coming back to the roles of field observation from Adler and Adler. In this context (the Moss article), some of the distinctions between participant observer and observer participant became a little clearer.
What most interested me, I think, was the very thorough and extensive explanation of the difficulties and problems as set up in LA. Certainly, everything they mentioned resonated with my limited experience conducting and writing up qualitative descriptive research, and they articulated very clearly all of my doubts and concerns about fuzziness. It made me wonder about any kind of (even non-statistical) validity or reliability of ethnography and other qualitative descriptive research. Any time that a respected textbook spends four or five times as much time talking about 10 substantial “problems, pitfalls, and cautions,” then the whole prospect gives me pause.
And yet, as a researcher interested in tapping into what goes on in the development of writing skills and the way that students construct knowledge, such methodologies seem to be the only windows into exploring and understanding that domain. Is ethnography really that “loosey-goosey” that it is difficult to pull out any reasonable conclusions or interpretations?