Triangulation? Try strangulation... : - )

Great quote: "Hymes (1980) states that the validity of an ethnography depends on an 'accurate knowledge of the meanings and behaviors of those who participate in them" (quoted in LA 41). Maybe if Hymes removed “accurate,” the focus would shift to the types of knowledge on which validity depends, but my first thought was, “Wow. What a great circular explanation.” The phenomenological focus is probably what Hymes meant to describe, but the quote still made me laugh. The catalogue of challenges faced by ethnographers who want “accurate knowledge” was probably the most interesting part of the chapter for me. I was shocked to see that many uneducated people see causal relationships in single co-occurences, and the warning about our tendency to focus on novel data was another great reminder. For me, this was a novel way to look at an obvious truth: Redundant data (though it is often overlooked) is the key to induction.
The concept of triangulation is the most important characteristic of ethnography, so I guess I should comment on that. Composing an ethnography is a daunting task to consider because of the multiplicity of data sources and the biases and relationships that must be discussed by the researchers. This would take a lot of writing! I noticed at least one reference to the scarcity of publication real-estate available to thorough qualitative studies (43).On page 41, L&A mention that Lemke and Bridwell turned a program evaluation into an ethnography, so non-academic audiences may be a way to support cost of publishing thorough ethnographic research. Ethnography seems to be really useful for a report to present to a school board. A school board and school administration would be interested in an ethnographic form of research because it is personalized yet thorough, in contrast to scientifically generalizable research methods or case studies. Chris, I see you're thinking the same thing by pointing out the problem of 90-90-90 schools being treated as the perfectly generic population.
Moss’s narrative gave good practical examples of Lauer and Asher’s prescriptions for good ethnography. In her post, Chris mentioned the catch-22 of insider knowledge, and I wanted to put my take on it in different words. Moss titles the section “Conducting and Ethnography: Making the Familiar Strange,” and it seems odd to me that the ethnographer who is native to the community under study must make the familiar strange to allow new perspectives, but he or she must also not make the familiar appear strange, less the informants feel uncomfortable working with a stranger.
One aspect of ethnography research that L&A did not cover was Moss’s position that the researcher must be “responsible to the community,” (169) but this statement raised my eyebrows and I feel deserved a little more discussion. Moss “did not want anyone in the community to be dissatisfied with what [she] had written,” but this seems like an impossibility. How do we decide when tough conclusions benefit the community more than those that avoid controversy? In a school district for example, would pointing to widespread parental distrust of the educational establishment be so distasteful to the community that it would put a (triangular) wedge between the community, the researchers, and the those who would utilize the research? If a charismatic and popular community leader seems to be able to smooth out tensions, in say a church community, would that give an ethnographer more license to reveal faults or “hard truths.” I know that data collection is controlled by an IRB, but the ethics of analysis and interpretation are another matter, right? Fortunately, ethnographers generally undertake their research to raise understanding and awareness about the communities they describe—or so we hope.