Search

Recent debates about qualitative methods have discussed the relative limitations and contributions of interviews in comparison to surveys and participant observation. These discussions have rarely considered how ethnographers themselves use interviews as part of their work. We suggest that Lizardo's discussion of three modes of culture (declarative, nondeclarative, and public) help us to understand the separate contributions of observation and interviews, with ethnographic interviews an especially helpful means of accessing different cultural modes. We also argue that Lizardo's conception of public culture should be divided into meso- and macrolevels and that this division helps to show the differing contributions of interviews within and without an ethnographic context. Developing our argument with data from the second author's ethnographic research and analysis of other scholars' ethnographies, we show how research that uses ethnographic interviews can help sociologists better understand how these four cultural modes interact.

The author describes how sociological and philosophical discussions of agency tend to center questions of how or why people are agentic rather than who or what is agentic. In contrast, the author poses questions about the agency of things, the agency of non-humans, and the agency of dead humans, using three examples of historical traces—Washington's refusal of a third term, Jenner's development of the smallpox vaccines, and Smith's publication of The Wealth of Nations —as historical examples to examine how non-humans and non-living-humans leave traces that can experienced as agentic. The author then analyzes six theories of agency that might provide explanations for these actions (actants, affordances, switchmen, residue, repression, and ghosts) before turning to his earlier work on the concept of "external authorities." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the late 20th century, public discourse in Muslim‐minority countries has centered around the question of how to classify Muslims. In this paper, we compare the state, academic, and self‐classification of Muslims in two countries: the United Kingdom and Germany. We propose that the historical experience of anti‐Semitism makes religion a more salient master category to understand Muslims in Germany, while the history of both anti‐Semitism and anti‐Black racism largely resulting from colonial domination means that religion together with race are master categories used to understand Muslims in the United Kingdom. Through this multilayered ethnographic and historical analysis, we challenge taken‐for‐granted assumptions in both the political and academic milieu about what it means to be Muslim, emphasizing the importance of the interplay between sociopolitical categories and self‐identifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Racial Order Mustafa Emirbayer and Matthew Desmond Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2015. Grounds for Difference Rogers Brubaker Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015. Although few people realistically [...]

Toward Democracy: The Struggle for Self-Rule in European and American Thought James T. Kloppenberg Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2016. In his 1998 book The Virtues of Liberalism, historian James [...]

Recent debates about qualitative methods have discussed the relative limitations and contributions of interviews in comparison to surveys and participant observation. These discussions have rarely considered how ethnographers themselves use interviews as part of their work. We suggest that Lizardo's discussion of three modes of culture (declarative, nondeclarative, and public) help us to understand the separate contributions of observation and interviews, with ethnographic interviews an especially helpful means of accessing different cultural modes. We also argue that Lizardo's conception of public culture should be divided into meso- and macrolevels and that this division helps to show the differing contributions of interviews within and without an ethnographic context. Developing our argument with data from the second author's ethnographic research and analysis of other scholars' ethnographies, we show how research that uses ethnographic interviews can help sociologists better understand how these four cultural modes interact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]