Search

In a reflection upon Alexander's (2024. The Asian Gang Revisited: Changing Muslim Masculinities. London: Bloomsbury Publishers.) The Asian Gang Revisited, I highlight challenges with “revisits”. They rest on a colonialist anthropological assumption: that you can go back to your tribe, and as a primitive community you’re welcome to assume that they are largely stuck in place. It’s thereby easy enough to reevaluate your claims. Alexander provides us with a powerful solution to this troubling problem: “Salvage ethnography”. This approach suggests both treasures and wreckage. Salvage creates real challenges for explanation, but also evokes an archaeological approach fruitfully deployed in other epistemic communities. It opens the possibility for a broader archaeological ethnographic practice that can help us think through what we should do with data yielded from methods that might not get us to the truth but may achieve understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This methodological review starts one step before Small's classic account of how many cases a scholar needs. We ask, "Which cases do I need?" We argue that a core feature of most qualitative research is case construction, which we define as the delineation of a social category of inquiry. We outline how qualitative researchers construct cases and observations and discuss how these choices impact data collection, analysis, and argumentation. In particular, we examine how case construction and the subsequent logic of crafting observations within cases have consequences for conceptual generalizability, as distinct from empirical generalizability. Drawing from the practice of qualitative work, we outline seven questions qualitative researchers often answer to construct cases and observations. Better understanding and articulating the logic of constructing cases and observations is useful for both qualitative scholars embarking on research and those who read and evaluate their work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This response to Campbell et al. makes three points. First, the commitment to "know more" must examine the full ecology of relationship violence and sexual misconduct (RVSM); that knowledge is essential for creating multilevel prevention strategies. Second, a full realization of an intersectional perspective requires attention to a broader range of power-based harms, forging institutional links between RVSM prevention and work on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Third, while support for survivors is certainly vital, most people who experience harm do not report it, and so an ambitious approach to prevention is vital to building communities in which everyone can thrive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]