Wooster on Gamma Gamma

I like Cook and Cambell's point--that an ethnography, when COMBINED with a more quantitative approach, provides a far more well-rounded study, since it delivers context along with the numbers. This idea appeals to me--more triangulation, if you will.

It seems to me that an ethnography is nothing more than a glorified observation, with a little interview thrown in.

I found the difficulties Sadler mentioned particularly interesting--and can see how such things, especially in regards to my thesis idea, might be an issue. Data overload, for example. How much is too much? What if your subject demands piles and piles of data? First impressions: I can see how this might be an issue, but for a researcher working in-depth, I can't see how it would really affect the project in the long-run. Confidence in judgment--this is, perhaps, my weakness. You see, I'm pretty sure I've noticed something--a pattern--and it will take a lot of compelling evidence to convince me otherwise; this is what I'm bringing IN to the research. A problem? Perhaps. But then, isn't it, at times, just such confidence that drives people to DO the research in the first place? Any researched worth his/her salt should be willing to change a hypothesis given proper evidence...though I guess this is easier said than done. For the budding historian in me, availability of research might be the biggest issue, especially since much of what I'll be dealing with is past and gone. Positive/negative instances: this, too, will be a challenge for me, though today in order to be considered a true scholar one must include almost as a prerequisite the negative opposed to the positive. I hope that makes sense.

Internal consistency/novelty of info--a challenge to all historians; though, if one is seeking a pattern, I would think redundancy would be highlighted and novelty cast in the dark. The uneven reliability of information and missing information--these are also major challenges for historians, especially considering, often, the paucity of choices available when it comes to sources.

When it comes to sampling considerations, I would think that one would always want to draw from as many samples as possible... Is there a magic number, I wonder, which, having received so many samples, would be proclaimed representative? Five hundred? A thousand?

In response to the final Asher/Lauer paragraph, I say: I am one of those who consider it exploratory and generative.