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.

a case of the blues

Jeez. Lauer and Asher made the writing of acceptable case studies seem hopelessly complicated to perform so as to achieve some validity, and for me, Newkirk's narrative was a major downer. I mostly side with Newkirk's "tell stories anyway!" attitude, in part because I see a response to his "lame" (130) justification of focusing on one, possibly exceptional case.

Lauer and Asher identify case studies as a preparatory activity not attempting "to establish cause and effect relationships," but to help "the researcher to identify new variables and questions." They seem to discount their usefulness, but at the same time call for an almost wasted rigor through coding and statistical analysis of coding consistency. Newkirk points out that in his experience, positivist researchers use more experimentally designed research—not case studies—to choose hypothesis and questions. I got to wondering why we should go to all the trouble of improving the case study if it never attains credibility.

Although he doesn't spend too much time theorizing it, Newkirk does point out a light at the end of the tunnel. The superiority of experimental or more empirical research is somewhat refuted by Newkirk when he reminds us to make our subjects human and to remember that variables are "transacted" (131). I think that references to differentiation in pedagogy would be helpful to his case. If we use large-sample data about writers in general, we still must teach individual students. If a student seems to fit a case, we can possibly use that case study to help an individual student. The farther students deviate from the norm, the more we can maybe make a case for case studies. Researchers could try to create subgroups to research experimentally and then match students to their subgroups, but no group will ever represent an individual, and case studies are an efficient way to "read" our students.

I also agreed with less enthusiasm about Newkirk's position on the potential for case studies to find new approaches. Newkirk reasons that because case studies "draw their authority from … enduring narratives that writers borrow to shape their accounts," they are "profoundly conservative and conventional" (136). We will see things as we want to see them, and only as they have been "archetypally" seen before. To structure their narratives and suggest directions for practice, even reform-minded case study authors use deeply rooted cultural myths (true or untrue)--for example, the victim-victimizer relationship in the education of minorities (146-147). Unfortunately, his analysis of case study writers does little to validate the rhetorical claims they make. Newkirk reminds us to question the validity and bias of case studies while applauding the storytelling form for having its own form of realism.