Content area

Abstract

Issue Title: Methods, Materials and Meanings: Designing Cultural Analysis

Against the background of recent methodological debates pitting ethnography against interviewing, this paper offers a defense of the latter and argues for methodological pluralism and pragmatism and against methodological tribalism. Drawing on our own work and on other sources, we discuss some of the strengths and weaknesses of interviewing. We argue that concern over whether attitudes correspond to behavior is an overly narrow and misguided question. Instead we offer that we should instead consider what interviewing and other data gathering techniques are best suited for. In our own work, we suggest, we have used somewhat unusual interviewing techniques to reveal how institutional systems and the construction of social categories, boundaries, and status hierarchies organize social experience. We also point to new methodological challenges, particularly concerning the incorporation of historical and institutional dimensions into interview-based studies. We finally describe fruitful directions for future research, which may result in methodological advances while bringing together the strengths of various data collection techniques.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Details

Title
Methodological Pluralism and the Possibilities and Limits of Interviewing
Author
Lamont, Michèle; Swidler, Ann
Pages
153-171
Publication year
2014
Publication date
Jun 2014
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V.
ISSN
01620436
e-ISSN
15737837
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
1519493837
Copyright
Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014