8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
1/32
Social
Research
etho s
lan ryman
t ir ition
OX OR
UN V RS TY PR SS
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
2/32
OX OR
UNIVBRSITY PIlIlSS
Great Clarendon Street, Orlord o 60P
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford .
It furthers the University s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town
Dar
es
Salaam
Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
A rg en ti na A ustria Brazil Chile Czech R ep ub li c Fra nc e G re ec e
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Swi tz erla nd Tha il an d Turke y U krai ne V ie ma rn
Oxford is a registered trade
mark
of Oxford University Press
in the
UK
and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford UniversityPress Inc., New York
AJan Bryman
2008
The moral rights of the
author
have been asserted
Database right Oxford UniversityPress maker)
First edition 200 1
Second edition
2004
Thisedition
2008
All rights reserved. No parr of this publication may
be
reproduced ,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the priorpermission in
writing
of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms
agreed
with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerningreproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford UniversityPress, at the address above
You must no t circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose the
same
condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Data
available
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Bryman, Alan.
Social research methods / Alan Bryman 3rd ed,
p.em.
Text accompanied by a companion web site .
ISBN-13: 978 0 19 920295 9
Social sciences Research 2. Social sciences Methodology I. Title .
H62 B7872008
300 72 dc22
2008003361
Typeset by Graphicraft Limited, Hong Kong
Printed in Italy
on acid-free
paper
by
LE.G.O.
S.p.A . . Lavis TN)
ISBN978 0 19 920295 9
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
3/32
riting
soci l
rese rch
h pteroutline
Introduction
Writing up your research 662
Start early 662
Be persuasive 662
Get feedback 663
Avoid sexist racist and disablist language 663
Structure your writing 663
Writing up quantitative qualitative
nd
mixed
methods rese r h
668
Writingup quantitative research 669
Writing up qualitative research 672
Writing up mixed methods research 675
Postmodernism
nd
its implications for writing 679
Writfng
ethnogr phy
684
Experiential authority 685
Typical forms 685
The native s point of view 685
Interpretative omnipotence 686
Checklist
686
Keypoints
688
Questions for review
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
4/32
e
-
Writing up social research
bapter
gui
Itis easy to forget
that
one of
the
main stages in any research project. regardless of its size, is
that
it has
to be w ri tt en up. Not only is this how you will convey your findings. but being aware of the significance
of writing iscrucial. because your audience must be persuaded about the credibility and importance of
your research. This chapter presents some of the characteristics of the writing-up of social research.
The chapter explores:
why writing. and especially good writing. isimportant to social research;
using examples. how quantitative and qualitative research are composed;
the influence and implications of postmodernism for writing;
key issues raised by discussions about the writing of
ethnography.
an area in which discuss ions about
writing have been especially prominent.
ntroduction
The aim of this chapter is to e xa mi ne s om e of the strat
egies that are employed in writing up social research. Initi
lly we will explore the question of whether quantitative
and qualitative research reveal divergent approaches , s
we willsee, the similaritiesare frequently more striking and
apparent than the differences. However, the main point
of this chapter is
to
extract some principles of good prac
tice that can be developed an d i nc or po ra te d into y ou r
own writing. This is an
important
issue, since many peo
pIefind writing up research more difficult than carrying it
out. On the
other
hand,
many
people treat the writing-up
stage as relatively unproblematic. But nomatter howwell
research is conducted, others
that
is, your readers) have
to
be
convinced about the credibility of the knowledge
claims you are ma kin g. Good w ri tin g is th ere fo re very
much to do with developingyour style so that it is persu -
siveand convincing Flat, lifeless , uncertain writing does
not
have the power to persuade and convince.
In
explor
ing these issues, I will touch on rhetorical strategies in the
wr itin g of social r es ea rc h see T hin kin g d ee pl y 27 .2).
As Atkinson 1990; 2) has o bs er ve d in relation to social
research, theconventions of text and rhetoric are among
the
ways
in w hi ch rea lity is constructed This chapter
will review some of the ways in which social r es ea rc h is
written
up in a
way
that
will
provide some basic ideas
about structuring y ou r own w ri tt en work you have to
produce something like a dissertation.
Q
y
concept
27
hat is rhetori
The study of rhetoric isfundamentally concerned with the ways in which attempts to convince or persuade
an audience are formulated. We often encounter the term in a negative context, such as mere rhetoric or the
opposition of rhetoric and reality . However, rhetoric is an essential ingredient ofwriting, because when we
write our aim is to convince others about the credibility of our knowledge claims.To suggest thaI rhetoric
should somehow be suppressed makes littlesense. since it isin fact a basic feature ofwriting The examination
of rhetorical strategies in written texts based on socialresearch isconcerned withthe identificationofthe
techniques inthose texts that are designed to convince and persuade.
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
5/32
66 ritin up
social research
Writing
up
your research
Itis
easy
to
neglect
th e
writing stage of
yourworkbecause
of th e difficulties
that
you often encounter in getting your
research
under
way. But-obvious
though
this
point
is
- y o u r dissertation ha s to be written. Your findings
m us t be c on ve ye d to an audience something that all of
us who carry out r es ear ch have to face.
Th e
first bi t of
advice is . . .
tart early
It is easy to take the view
that
the writing-up of your
research findings is
something
that
you
ca n
think
about
afteryou have collected
an d
analysed your
data.
There is,
of c our se , a g ra in of truth in this view, in that you could
hardly write up your findings until you know
what
they
are, which issomething that you can know onlyonce you
have gathered
an d
analysed
your dat a.
However, there
are good reasons for beginning writing early on, since you
might want to start thinking about such issues as ho w
best
to
present and
justify
th e
research questions
that
are driv_
ing your research or ho w
structure the theoretical and
research literature that will have been used to frame Your
research questions. Students often tend
underestimate
the tim e
that
it will t ak e to write up
their
research, soit is
a
good
idea to a ll ow pl ent y of time for this , espedally if
you ar e expecting your supervisor to read and omment
on an early draft, since you will need to allow him or her a
reasonable amount of t im e for this. A further reason hy
it is advisable
begin writing earlier
rather
than later is
an entirely practical one: many people find it difficult to
ge t s ta rt ed a nd
employ probably unwittingly) procrasti
nation
strategies
to pu t
off th e inevitable. This tendency
ca n result in the w ri ti ng b ei ng left u nt il the last minute
an d consequently rushed. Writing under this kind ofpres
sure is
no t
i deal . How you represent
your
findings and
conclusions is a crucial
stage
in the r esearch process. If
you do no t provide a convincing account of your research,
yo u w ll no t do justice to it.
f @\
f : i ~ 1
tudent
experien e
Writing
up
is
difficult
Several of the students mentioned that they found writing up difficult.Gareth Matthews comments that
he found this stage the most difficult . Isabella Robbins admits that writing th e chapters presenting her
findings was
t he
most difficult task of
th e
Ph.D. process . Having enough time for writing up isa common
refrain in their questionnaires. Sarah Hanson s dvi e is:
w
The only problem with a writing project ofthis size istime. As it isalwaysagainst you start early.and be
organized, do one thing at a time. Work chronologically. Lecturers and markers liketo see that you have
gone on a journey of exploration into an interesting world and at the end have come out with something
worthwhile that has changed your thinking and will hopefully challenge theirs.
To readmoreabout
Gareth s Isabella s
and Sarah s research
experiences.
goto the
Online
Resource
Centre thataccompanies thisbookat http: www oxfordtextbooks co uk orc brymansrm3el
e persuasive
This point iscrucial. Writing up your research is no t sim
ply a matter of reporting your findings
an d
drawing
some
conclusions. Writing up
your
research will contain many
other features, such as referring
the literature on which
you drew, explaining
ho w
you did
your
research, and out
lining ho w you conducted your analysis. But above all,
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
6/32
yoUmust be persuasive. This
means
that you
must
con
vince
your readers
of
th e
credibility
of your
conclusions.
Sim ly saying this is
what
I found;
isn t
it interesting is
not
enough.
You
must
persuade your readers that your
findings
an d
conclusion
ar e
significant
a nd t ha t they ar e
plausible.
Getfeedback
Try
to ge t
as
much feedback on your writing as possible
nd
respond po sitively to th e
points anyone makes about
what
they read.
Your
supervisor
is l ikely to
be
t he m ai n
source
offeedback
but institutions vary in
what
supervi
sors
are allowed
to
comment
on . Provide
your supervisor
with
drafts
of your
work to
th e fullest
extent
that regula
tions
will
allow. Give
him
or he r plenty of t ime to provide
feedback.
There
will be
others like
you
wh o
will
want
Writing up
social
research
your
supervisor
to
conunent
on their work
and
i he or
sh e
feels rushed th e
comments may
be less helpful. Also,
yo u ~ o u as k
others
on
th e
same degree
programme to
r ea d y ou r d ra ft s a nd c om me nt
on
t he m. T he y m ay
ask
yo u to do th e
same
.
Their
comments may be very useful, .
but
by
an d
large,
your supervisor s comments are
the
main ones you should seek
out.
Avoid sexist, racist, an d disablist
language
R em em be r t ha t y ou r w ri ti ng sh oul d be
free of sexist ,
racist,
an d
disablist
language.
Th e British Sociological
Association
p ro vi de s v er y go od gene ral a nd
specific
advice
about
this issue, which ca n be found at http://
w ww .britsoc.co.ukJequality/
(accessed on
16 July
2007).
:t,
, :
.
i
i
Co
. .
ips
nd skills
Non sexist writin
One ofthe biggest problems (but by no means the only one) when trying to write in a non sexist way is
avoiding complex h
is/her
formulations. The easiest way of dealing with this is to write inthe plural insuch
circumstances. Consider, for example : I wanted to giveeach respondent the opportunity to complete the
questionnaire in his or her own time and ina location that was convenient for him or her . Thisis a rather
tortuous sentence and, although grammatically correct,itcould be phrased more
helpfUlly
as: l wanted to give
respondents th e opportunity to complete their questionnaires in their own time and in a location that was
convenient for them .
Structure your writing
It may be
that
you
have to write
a
dissertation
of
around
10,000-15,000
words
for
your
degree.
H ow m ig ht
it be
Structured?
Th e
following
is
typical of th e Structure of a
dissertation .
Title page
You should
examine
your institution s rules
a b ou t w ha t
should be entered here.
Acknowledgements
You
might want to acknowledge th e help of various
people, su ch as
gatekeeper
s
wh o
g av e y ou access to an
organization
people
wh o
have
read your
drafts
an d
provided
you
with
feedback, or
your
supervisor
for his or
he r
advice.
list of contents
Your institution ma y have
recommendations
or prescrip
tions about th e
form this
should
take
An abstract
A
brief
summary
o f your
dissertation.
No t ail
institu
tions require
this
component
so
check
on
whether
it is
required
. Journal articles usually
ha v
e abstracts, so you
can d raw
on
these
for
guidance
on
ho w
to
approach
this task.
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
7/32
Writing up social research
Introduction
The following are some points to consider when writing
an introduction.
You should explain what you are writing about and
why it is important. Saying simply that it interests
you because of a long-standing personal interest is
not enough.
You
might indicate in general terms the theoretical
approach or perspective you will be using and why.
You should also at this point outline your research
questions. In the case of dissertations based on quali
tative research, it is likely that your research ques
tions will be rather more open-ended than is the case
with quantitative research . But do
try
to identify some
research questions. A totally open-ended research
focus is riskyand can lead to the collectionof too much
data, and, when it comes to writing up, itcan result in
a lackof focus.
The opening sentence or sentences are often the most
difficultof all. Becker 1986) advises strongly against
opening sentences that he describes as vacuous and
evasive . He gives the example of This study deals
with the problem of careers , and adds that this kind
of sentence employs a typically evasive manceuvre,
pointing to something without saying anything, or
anything much, about it.
h t
about careers? Becker
1986: 51). He suggests that such evasiveness often
occurs because of concerns about givingawaythe
plat.
fact, he argues, it is much better to give readers a
quick and clear indication ofwhat isgoing to bemeted
out to them and where it isgoing.
liter ture
review
See Chapter 4 for more detailed advice on how to go
about writing this chapter of your dissertation.
Research methods
The term research methods is meant here as a kind
of catch-all for several issues that need to be outlined:
your research design; your sampling approach; how
access was achieved if relevant; the procedures youUsed
such as, if you sent out a postal questionnaire, did
you follow up non-respondents); the nature ofyourques.
tionnaire, interview schedule, participant observation
role, observation schedule, coding frame, or
whatever
these will usually appearin an appendix, but you
should
comment on such things as your style of questioning Or
observation and why you asked the thingsyoudid); prob-
lems of non-response ; note taking; issues of ongoing
access and cooperation; coding matters; and how you
proceeded with your analysis. When discussingeachof
these issues, you should describe and defend the choices
that you made, such as why you used a postal question-
naire rather than a stru tured interview approach, or
why you focused upon that particular population for
sampling purposes.
ips
nd
skills
he
import n e
of n
rgument
Inmyexperience, one ofthe thingsthat studentsfind most
difficult
about
writing
up theirresearch isthe
formulat ionof an argument. Thewriting -upof research shouldbe organized around an argument that
links
allaspectsof the researchprocessfrom
problem formulat
ion,
through
literature
review
and the
presentat ion
of researchmethods,to the
discussion
and conclusion. Toooften,students makea series ofpointswithout
asking what the contribution ofthose pointsisto the overall argumentthat they are trying to present. Consider
what your
claim
to knowledge isand tryto organize yourwr
iting
to support and enhance it.Thatwill be
yourargument.
Sometimes
itis
useful
to think in termsof
seeking
to tella storyabout your
research
and your
findings. Try to avoid
tangentsand
irrelevant material
that maymean that yourreaders
will
losethe
thread
ofyourargument. Ifyouare not able to supply a dear argument, youare very vulnerable to the so what?
Question. Ask yourself: What isthe keypointormessage that Iwantmy readers to take away
with
themwhen
they have
fin
ished readingmy
work?
Ifyoucannotanswerthatsimple Question satisfactorily anditmay be
worth
trying
itout on others), almostcertainly youdo not havean argument.Theargument isa thread that
runs through yourdissertation see Figure 27
foran illustration of this .
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
8/32
The role of an argument ina dissert tlon
lntroductlon
A
Literaturereview
R
G
Research methods
u
Results
M
iscussion
N
onclusion
T
Writing up socia l rese rch
Results
In this chapter you present the bulk of your findings.
you intend to have a separate Discussion chapter, it is
likelythat the results will be presented with little com-
mentary in terms of the literature or the implications of
your findings. If there will be no Discussion chapter, you
will need to provide some reflections on the significance
of your findings for your research questions and for the
literature. Bear these points in mind.
Whichever approach you take, remember not to
include
your results. You should present and dis-
cuss only those findings that relate to your research
questions. This requirement may mean a rather
painful process of leaving out many findings, but it
is necessary, so that the thread of your argument is
not lost (see Tips and skills 'The importance of an
argument ' for more on the significance of having a
good argument).
Your writing should point to particularly salient as-
peers of the tables, graphs, or other forms of analysis
you present. Do not just summarize what a table
shows; you should direct the reader to the component
or components of it that are especially striking from
the point of viewofyour research questions. Try toask
yourself what story you want the table to convey and
try
to relay that story to your readers.
Another sin to be avoided is simply presenting a
graph or table or a section of the
tr nscript
of a semi-
structured
interview or focus
group
session without
any comment whatsoever, because the reader is left
wondering why you think the finding is important.
When reponing quantitative findings, it is quite a
good idea to vary wherever possible the method of
presenting results for example, provide a mixture of
diagrams and tables. However, you must remember
the lessons of Chapter 14 concerning the methods
of analysis that are appropriate to different types of
variable.
A particular problem that can arise with qualitative
research is
th t
students find it difficult to leave out
large p ns of their d t . As one experienced qualita -
tive researcher has put it: 'Themajor problem we face
inqualitative inquiry isnot toget data, but toget rid of
it ' (Wolcott 99 a: 18). He goes on to say that the
'critical task in qualitative research is not to accumu-
late all the data you can, but to can
[i.e,
get rid of]
most of the data you accumulate' (Wolcott1990a: 35).
You simply have to recognize that much of the rich
data you accumulate will have to bejettisoned. Ifyou
do not do this, any sense of an argument inyour work
is likely to be lost. There is also the risk that your
account of your findings will appear too descriptive
and lack an analytical edge. This iswhy it is important
to use research questions as a focus and to orient the
presentationofyour findings to them. It isalsoimport-
ant to keep in mind the theoretical ideas and the liter-
ature that have framed your work. The theory and
literature that have influenced your thinking will also
have shaped your research questions.
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
9/32
...
W
riting up social research
~ l ~ r
w
,.
. .. I
1,1
.
L .
w
tudent experien e
o nottry to writ
up
everything
You will not be able to write up everything that you havefound.
Sophie
Masonrecognizedthis.
She
writes:
The greatquantity of datameant that I had to usemy own judgementas to what datawas themost
relevant
totheaimsof the
research
. I
also
had to be careful to usevisual
aids
when usingcomplicated
statistics
to
emphasize the importance of the results
Rebecca Barneswrites:
Because
somany important and interesting
issues
haveemergedin theanalysis of mydata.I
have
hadtobe
selective
; I havechosento do justice to a smallernumber of themes, rather than resortingto superficial
coverage of a largernumber of themes
Toread more about Sophie sond Rebeccasresearch experiences go to the Online Resource Centrethat
accompanies this boo k at http://www ox ordtextbooksco uk/orc/brymansrm3e/
tudent experien e
The importance o research questions theory
and the literature in writing up findings
Several
students mentioned how important it wasfor them to keep in mind their researchquestions and
the theory and literature that were driving their
research
while writing up. Forone thing, they helpthe
student to decide which findings to include or to emphasize when writing up.
Rebecca
Barneswrites:
I choseto have three chaptersof my thesisthat reported my
findings
andI
chose
the themesthatI would
indude in eachof thesechapters. These were not. however,setin stone andhavechangedina numberof
respects from when I first started to plan the writing-up.
Each
of
these chapters addresses
oneofmymain
research
questions or aims.
ErinSanders writes: First I wrote down the main points and ideasI wanted to get across-and how my
findings related to [my research
Question
. Hannah Creane s writing-up of her findings wasgeared
to
her
research Questions
I grouped together questionsand responses that concemedsimilar
aspects
within the childhooddebate
and
formed threemain chapters: What makes a child a child?: Childhoodpasttimes:and The childtoday. Within
these
chapters
I interwove themesthat emergedfrom the data andseemed tobe presentin most
responses
For Gareth Matthews the theoretical debates about the labour process were crucial: This hasallowedme
to frame my thesistheoretically , and to lay the foundations for a
discussion
of my empirical findings.
Toread more about Rebecca s Erin5 Hannah 5 and Gareth s research experiences. go to the Online
ResourceCentre that accompanies this book at htlp:llwww oxfordtextbooks couk lorclbrymansrm3el
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
10/32
Uyou are writinga thesis--forexample, for an M.PhiJ.
or Ph.D.
degree it
is likely that you will have more
than one and possibly several chapters in which you
present your results. Cryer 1996 recommends show
ing at
the
beginning
of
each chapter the particular
issues that are being examined in the chapter . You
should indicate which research question or questions
are being addressed in the chapter and provide some
signposts about what will be included in the chapter.
In the conclusion of the chapter, you should make
dear
what your results have shown and
draw
out any
links
that might be
made
with the next results chapter.
Discussion
In the Discussion, you reflect on the implications of your
findings for the research questions that have driven your
research. In other words, how do your results illuminate
your research questions? If you have specified hypo
theses, the discussion
w
revolve around whether the
hypotheses have been confirmed
or
not, and, if not, you
might speculate about
some
possible reasons for and the
implicationsof their refutation.
Conclusion
The main points here are as follows.
AConclusion is not the same as a summary. However,
it
is
frequently useful to bring out in the opening para
graph of
the
Conclusion
your
argument thus far. This
will mean relating your findings and your discussion
of them to your research questions. Thus, your brief
summary should be a means of hammering home
to
your readers the significance ofwhat you have done.
You should make
clear
the implications of your find
ings for your research questions.
Writing up social research
You might suggest some ways in which your findings
have implications for theories relating to your area of
interest.
You might draw attention to any limitations of your
research with the benefit of hindsight, but it is prob
ably best not to overdo this element and provide exam
iners with too much ammunition that might be used
against youl
It isof tenvaluable
to
propose areas of further research
that are suggested byyour findings.
Two things to avoid are engaging in speculations that
take you too far away from your data, or that cannotbe
substantiated by the data, and introducing issues or
ideas that have not previously been brought up.
ppendices
In your appendices you might
want
to include such things
as your questionnaire, coding frame, or observation
schedule, letters sent to sample members, and letters sent
to and received from gatekeepers where the cooperation
of an organization was required.
eferences
Include here
all
references cited in the text. For the format
of the References section you should follow whichever
one isprescribed byyour department. Nowadays, the for
mat is usually a variation of me Harvard method, such as
the one employed for this book.
Finally
Remember to fulfil any obligations you entered into, such
as supplying a copy of your dissertation, if, for example,
your access
to
an organization was predicated on provid
ing one, and maintaining the confidentiality of informa
tion supplied and the anonymity of your informants and
other
research participants.
~ ~ i
tudent xp ri n
tructure
o
th
dissert tion or thesis
Some of the students wrote up their workwith a similarstructure to the one that has been outlined inthis
section. Sophie Masonwrites:
The research
proj t
waswritten invariousstages and splitinto severaldifferentsections;these were as
follows: Introductionand
ims
LiteratureReview , ResearchDesignand DataGathering,Data nalysisand
ResearchFindings.Condusionsand Recommendations.Appendixand
Bibliography
.
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
11/32
Writing up social research
Erin Sanders writes:
Iwrote it inorder, introduction, literature review, research design, findings, discussion,and conciusion,l
each section asifitwere an essay in and of itself and attempted to break itdown intochunks soas nottoget
lost ina long document.
~
Toread more about Sophie s
and
Erin sresearch experiences go to the Online Resource Centrethat
accompanies this book at http: www oxfordtextbooks co uk orc brymansrm3el
Tips andskills
Proof reading
y u
dissertation
Before Ubmittingyour dissertation, make sure that it isspell-checked and check it forgrammaticaland
punctuation errors. There are many useful guides and handbooks that can be used forthis purpose. Itmayalso
be usefulto ask someone else, such as a friendor family member, to proof read
your
work incase there are
errors that you have missed. Aswellas being an important presentational issue,this will affectthe ease with
which yourwritten work can be read and understood. Ittherefore has the potential to affect the qualityofyour
dissertation significantly.
riting up quantitative qualitative
nd mixed methods rese r h
In the next t hr ee s ec ti on s, r es ea rc h- ba se d a rti cl es
that
have been published in journals
are
examined to detect
some helpful features. One is b ase d on quantitative re
search, one on qualitative research, and anotheron mixed
methods
research. The presentation of the quantitative
and the qualitative research articles raises the question of
whether practitioners of
the
two research strategies em
ploydifferent writing approaches. It issometimes suggested
that
they do, though,
when
I
compared
two articles based
on research in the sociology of work, I found
that
the dif
ferences were less pronounced
than
I had anticipated on
the basis of r ea di ng the l it er at ur e on
the
topic Bryman
1998). One difference thatI have noticed isthat, injournals,
quantitative researchers often give more detailed accounts
of their research design, research methods, and approaches
to analysis than qualitative researchers. This issurprising,
because, in books reporting their research, qualitative re
searchers provide detailed accounts of these areas. Indeed,
the cha pters in Part T hr ee of this book rely h ea vi ly on
these accounts. Wolcott 199 a:
27
has also noticed this
tendency: Our [qualitative researchers ] failure to render
full and complete disclosure
about our
data-gathering
procedures give
our
methodologically oriented colleagues
fits. And rightly so, especially for those among them will
ing to accept our contributions ifwe would only provide
more careful
data
about
our
data. Being informed that
a study was based
on
a year s participant observation or
a n um be r of s em i- st ru ct ur ed in ter vie ws is not enough
to gain an a cc ep ta nc e
of
the claims to credibility that a
writer might be wishing to convey.
Ho wev er, this p oi nt as id e, in the dis cussio n that Iol
lows, although
one
article based on quantitative research
and one based on qualitative research will be examined,
we should not be too surprised if they tum out to be more
similar than might have been expected. In other words,
. a lthough we might have expected clear differences
between the two in terms of their approaches to writing,
the similarities are more noticeable than the differences.
In addition
t
looking
at
examples of writing
in
quanti
tative and qualitative research, I will examine the matter
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
12/32
of how mixed met ho ds resea rc h can be w ri tt en up and
explore s om e guidelines t ha t are being prof fered by
practitioners. The a pp ro ac h to d ea li ng with the mixed
methods res ea rc h article is s lig ht ly d iffe re nt from the
other twO in that I
will
begin with some general sugges
tions for writing up mixed methods research as this is an
re
that has not been given a
great
deal ofattention.
.
Writing up quantitative research
Toillustratesome of the characteristics of the way quanti
tativeresearch is written up for academic journals, I will
take the article by Kelley and De Graaf 1997 that was
referred to on several occasions in Chapters 1 2 6 and
13
see especially Research in focus
1.4
and
6.3). I
am not
suggesting that this article
is
somehow exemplary or
representative,
but
rather that it exhibits some features
that are o ft en reg arde d as d es irab le qu al it ies
in
terms
of presentation and structure. The article is based on a
secondary
analysis
of survey
data
on religion in fifteen
nations and was ac cep te d for p ub li ca ti on in one of the
most p re st ig io us j ou rn al s in sociology the
meric n
Sociological eview which is the official j ou rn al of the
American Sociological Association. The vast majority of
published articles in academic journals entail the blind
refereeing of articles submitted. This means that an arti
cle will be read by two or t hr ee peers, who c om me nt on
the anicle and give the editors ajudgement about its mer
its and h en ce whether it is
wonhy
of publication. Most
articles submitted are rejected. With highly prestigious
journals, it iscommon for in excess of
90 per
cent of arti
c es
to be rejected. It is unusual for an article to be
accepted on its first submission. Usually,
the
referees
will
suggest areas that need revising and the
author
or
authors) is
expected to respond
to that
feedback. Revised
versions of articles are usually sent back to the referees for
funher comment, and th is process may result in the
a ut ho r h avi ng to revise the d ra ft yet again. It may even
result in rejection. Therefore, an article like Kelleyand De
Graafs is not just the culmination of a research process,
but is also the o ut co me of a feed bac k pro cess. The fact
that it has
been
accepted for publication, when many
others have been rejected , testifies to its merits as having
met the s ta nd ards of the j ou rn al. That is not to say it
is
perfect, but the refereeing process isan indication that it
does possess certain crucial qualities.
Structure
The article has the following components, aside from the
abstract:
Writing up social research
1. introduction;
2., theory;
3.
data;
4.
measurement ;
5. methods
and
models;
6.
results;
7.
conclusion.
Introduction
Right at
the
beginning of
the
introduction, the opening
four sentences attempt to g rab our attention, to give a
clear i nd ic at io n of w he re the arti cl e s focus lies, and to
provide an indication of the probable significance of the
findings . This is
what
the authors write :
Religionremains a central element of modern life,
shaping people s world-views, moral standards, family
lives,and in many nations, their politics.
But
in many
Western nations, modernization and secularization
may be eroding Christian beliefs, with profound
consequences
that
have intrigued sociologistssince
Durkheim. Yet this much touted secularization may
be
overstated certainly
it varies widely among
nations and isabsent in the United States Benson,
Donahue, and Erickson
1989: 154-7:
Felling,Peters,
and Schreuder
1991;
Firebaugh and Harley
1991;
Stark and Iannaccone
1994) .
We explore
the
degree to
which religious beliefs are passed on from generation
to generation in different nations . Kelleyand De
Graaf 1997: 639)
This is an i mpressive s ta rt , because, in j us t over 100
words, the authors set out what
the article
is about
and its
significance. Let us look at
what
each sentence achieves.
The first sentence locates the article s research focusas
addressing an important aspect of
modem
society that
touches on many people s lives.
The s ec on d s e nt en ce n ot es that there isvariety among
Western nations in the importance of religion and that
the v aria ti on s may have p ro fo un d conseq uence s .
But this s en te nc e does more t ha n the first sen ten ce :
it also s ug ge st s t ha t this is an area that has been of
interest to sociologists . To support this point , one of
sociology s most venerated figures-Emi le
Durkheim-
is mentioned.
The t hir d se nt en ce suggests
that
there is a problem
w it h the n ot io n of secular izat ion, which has been a
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
13/32
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
14/32
certain theories
out
religious beliefs In
modem
society,
whichwere outlined in their Theory section:
Our results also speak to the long-running debate
about USexceptionalism (Warner 1993): They support
the viewthat
the
United States is unusually religious.
. . . Our results do not support Stark and Iannaccone s
(1994) supply-side analysis of differences between
nations whi h argues that nations with religious
monopolies have substantial unmet religious needs,
while churches in religiously competitive nations like
the United States do a better job of meeting diverse
religiousneeds. (Kelley and De Graaf 1997: 655)
. - _ . . . .. . , . , r -
The final paragraph spells out some inferences about
thewaysin which social changes have an impact on levels
of religious belief n a nation. The authors suggest that
factors such as modernization arid the growth of educa
don depress levels of religious beliefand
th t
their impact
tends to result in a precipitous
r ther
th n a gradual fallin
levelsof religiosity. In their final three sentences, they go
on to write out societies undergoing such change:
The offspring ofdevout families mostly remain
devout, but the offspring of more secular families
now strongly tend to be secular. A self-reinforcing
spiral ofsecularization then sets in, shifting the
nation s average religiosity ever further away from
orthodoxy. So after generations of stability, religious
beliefdeclines abruptly in the course ofa few
generations to the modest levels seen in many
Western nations. (Kelley and De Graaf 1997: 656)
It might be argued th t these reflections are somewhat
risky, because the
d t
from which the authors derive
their findings are cross-sectional in research design terms
rather than longitudinal. They are clearly extrapolating
from
their
scoring of the fifteen nations in terms of levels
of modernization to the impact of social changes on
national levels of religiosity. However, these final sen
tences make for a strong conclusion, which itself might
form a springboard for further research.
lessons
What lessons can be learned from Kelley and De Graaf s
article? To some extent, these have been alluded to in
the course of the above exposit ion, ut they are worth
spelling out.
Writing up
social
rese rch 7
There is a clear
ttempt
to grab the reader s attention
with st rong opening statements, which also act as
signposts to wh t the article isabout.
The
uthors
spell out
de rly
the rationale of their
research. This entails pointing
to
the continued sig
nificance of religion in many societies and to the litera
ture on religious beliefs and secularization.
The research questions are spelled out in a very
specific way . In fact, the authors present hypotheses
th t are a highly specific form of research question.
s noted n Chapter 6, by no means all quantitative
research isdrivenbyhypotheses, even though outlines
of the n ture of quantitative research often imply that
it is. Nonetheless, Kelleyand De Graaf chose to frame
their research questions in this form.
The
n ture
of the data,
the
measurement of concepts,
the sampling, the research methods employed and the
approaches to the analysis of the data are dearly and
explicitly summarized insections 3, 4, and S.
The presentation of the findings insection 6 isoriented
very specifically to the research questions that drive
the research.
The conclusion returns to the research questions and
spells
out
the implications of the findings for them
and for the theories examined in section 2. This is
an impor tan t element. It is easy to forget that you
should think of
the
research process as closing a circle
in which you must return unambiguously to your
research questions. There is no point inserting extra
neous findings they do not illuminate your research
questions. Digressions of this kind can be confusing to
readers, who might be inclined to wonder about the
significance
of
the extraneous findings.
We also see that there is a clear sequential process
moving from the formulation of the research questions
through the exposition of the nature of the data and the
presentat ion of the findings to the conclusions. Each
stage islinked to nd follows on from its predecessor (but
see Thinking deeply 27.1). The structure used by Kelley
and De Graa f is based on a common one employed in
the writ ing-up of quanti tat ive research for academic
journals in the social sciences. Sometimes there isa separ
ate Discussion section
th t
appears between the Results
and the Conclusion. Another variation is that issues of
measurement and analysis appear in the same section as
the one dealing with research methods, but perhaps with
distinct subheadings.
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
15/32
7
ritin
upso i l
r e s e r ~ h
Thinking deeply
27.1
An empiricist repertoire?
Atthispoint, it isworth
recalling
the discussion inChapter20ofGilbertand
MUlkay s
(1984)
research on
scientists.Theauthorsdrewa distinction between an em irkist
repertoire
and a contingent
repertoire The
formerderived from the observation that the texts ofexperimentalpapers display certain recurrent
styl
istic
g r a m m a t i c ~ and lexical featureswhichappear to be coherentlyrelated (Gilbert and
Mulkay
1984;55-6).
We
shouldbear in mind that the same istrue ofpapers writtenforsocial sciencejournals. Thesetoo
display Certa
n
features thatsuggesta certain
inevitability
to the outcomeofthe research.
n
other words,the readeris
given
a sense that, in
following
the
rigorous
proceduresoutlined in the article, the researchers
logically
arr
ived
at
their conclusions . Thecontingentrepertoire,withits recognition ofthe roleof the researcherinthe
production
of
find
ings, is far lessapparent in scientists published
work
. Thus, we have to recognize the possibility that
the
impression
ofa seriesof
linked
stagesleadingto an inescapableculmination isto a largeextenta
reconstruction ofeventsdesigned to persuade referees(who,ofcourse,use the same
tactics themselves)
ofthe credib
ility
and importance ofone s
findings.
This
means that the conventions about
writing
upa
Quantitat iveresearchproject. someofwhich are outlined in thischapter,are inmanywaysallinvitation to
reconstructan investigation ina particular way. Thewholeissueofthe waysinwhichthe writing-up ofresearch
representsa meansofpersuadingothers ofthe
credibility
ofone s
knowledge claims
has beena
particular
preoccupation amongqualitative researchers(see below)andhas been greatlyinnuencedbythe
surge
of
interest inpostmodernism. However, in Thinking deeply27.2,someof the rhetorical strategies involved in
writingup quantitative
social
researchareoutlined. Threepointsareworth making about these strategies in
the present context.
First
theyare characteristic of the empiricist repertoire.
Second,
whilethe
writ
ingof
Qualitat ive research hasbeen a particular
focus
in recent times(see below).someattention hasalsobeen
paid
to Quantitative research.
Third,
when Icompared the writing ofQuanti tativeand Qualitative research articles ,
Ifound theywere not as dissimilar in termsof rhetorical strategiesas issometimesproposed
Bryman
1998).
However,ldid
find
greaterevidenceofa managementmetaphor (see
Thinking
deeply27
.2),
which
is
also
evident in
Kelley
and DeCraal s
article;
forexample, we excludedthe deviant cases
from
our
analysis
0997:
646)
and we divided the nationsinto five groups (1997: 647).
Writing up qualitative research
Nowwe will look at an example ofa journal article based
on qualitative research, Again, I am not suggesting that
the article Is exemplary or representative, but that it
exhibits some features that are often regarded as desir
able qualities in terms of presentation and structure. The
article isone that has been referred
to in
several previous
chapters (especially Research in focus
2.10, 18.2,
and
18 8 : a study of vegetarianism byBeardsworth and Keil
(1992).
The study isbased on semi-structured interviews
and was published in the ociologic l
Review
a leading
Britishjournal.
Structure
The Structure runs as follows:
1 introduction;
2.
theanalysisofthe socialdimensionsoffood
lind eating
;
3. studies ofvegetarianism;
4. the design of the study;
5. the findings ofthe study;
6 explaining contemporary vegetarianism;
7.
conclusions.
What
is
immediately striking about the structure is that
it is not dissimilar to Kelley and De Graaf s
(1997).
Nor should this be all that surprising. Afterall, a srructure
that runs
Introduction
Literature review
Research design
methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
16/32
is not obviously associated with one rese rch str tegy
rather than the other. One difference from quantitative
research articles is
th t
the presentation ofthe results and
the discussion of them are frequently rather more inter
woven
in
qualitative research articles. We
will
see this
in
the case of Beardsworth and Keil sarticle.
As
with Kelley
and De Graaf s article , we will examine the writing in
ten
of the article s structure.
Introduction
The first four s en tences give us an immediate sense of
what the article isabout and where its focus lies;
The purpose of this paper isto offer a contribution
to the analysis of
the
cultural and sociological factors
which influence patterns of food selection and food
avoidance. The spedfic focus iscontemporary
vegetarianism, a complex of inter-related beliefs,
attitudes and nutritional practices which has to date
received comparatively little attention from social
scientists. Vegetarians in western cultures, in most
instances, are not life-long practitioners but converts.
Theyare individuals who have subjected more
traditional foodways to critical scrutiny, and
subsequently made a deliberate decision to change
their eating habits, sometimes in a radical fashion.
Beardsworth and Kei 99 : 253)
like Kelley and De Graaf s, this is a strong introduction.
Wecan look again at what each sentence achieves.
The first sentence makes clear
th t
the research iscon
cerned with issues to do with the study of food.
The second sentence provides us with the specific re
search
focus the
study ofveget ri nism nd makes
a claim for our attention by suggesting th t this is a
topic that has been under-researched by sociologists.
Interestingly, this is almost the opposite of the claim
made by Kelleyand DeGraaf
in
their second sentence,
in that they po int to a line of sociological interest in
religion going back Durkheim. Each is a legitimate
textual Strategy for gaining the attention of readers.
Our att ent ion is jolted even more by an interesting
assertion th t begins to draw the reader into
one
of the
article s primary themes the idea of vegetarians as
converts .
The fourth sentence elaborates upon the idea of vege
tarianism as being for most people an issue of choice
rather than a tradition into which one isborn.
Writing up social research 7
Thus, after around 100 words, the reader has a clear idea
of the focus of the research and has been led to anticipate
there is unlikely to be a great deal of pre-existing
social research on this issue.
The analysis of
th e
social dimensions of food
nd
e ting
This and the next section review existing theory and
research in this area. In th is section, the contributions of
various social scientists to social aspects of food and eat
ing are discussed . The literature reviewed acts as a back
cloth to the issue of vegetarianism. Beardsworth and Keil
I992: 255) propose th t their review of existing theory
and research suggests th t there exists a range of theor
etical and empirical resources which can be b ro ug ht to
bear upon the issue of contemporary vegetarianism . This
point is important, as the authors note once again at the
end of the section that vegetarianism has received little
attention from social scientists.
Studies of vegetarianism
This section examines aspects ofthe literature on vegetar
ianism that has
been
carried outby social scientists or th t
has a social scientific angle. The review includes: opinion
poll and survey data, which point to the likelypercentage
of vegetarians
in
the British population; debates about
animal rights; sociological analysis of vegetarian ideas ;
and one st udy Dwyer er
l
1974)
of vegetarians in the
USAcarried out by a team of social scientists using sur
vey research. In the final p ar ag raph of
this
section, the
authors indicate the contribution ofsome of the literature
they have covered.
The design of the study
The first sentence of this section forges a useful
link
with
the preceding one: The themes outlined above appear to
warrant further investigation, preferably in a manner
which allows for a much more richly detailed exarnina
tion of motivations and experiences than is apparent in
the s tu dy by Dwyer er
01.
Beardsworth and Keil 1992:
260) . This opening gambit allows the authors to suggest
that the literature in this area is scant and that there are
many unanswered questions. Also, they distance them
selves from the one sociological study of vegetarians,
which in tum leads them to set up the grounds for prefer
ring qualitative research. The authors then outline;
who was to be st udie d and why;
how respondents were recruited see Research in
focus 18.8) and the difficulties encountered;
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
17/32
7
Writing up
social research
the semi-srrucrured interviewing approach (see
Research in focus 18.2 and the rationale for it;
the number of people interviewed and the context in
which the interviews took place;
the approach
analysing the interview transcripts,
which largely comprised the identification of themes.
The findings of
the study
The chief findings are outlined
under
separate headings:
respondents characteristics; types of vegetarianism; the
process of conversion; motivations; nutritional beliefs;
social relations; and dilemmas. The presentation of the
results is carried out so
that
there is some discussion of
their meaningor significance in such a way as to lead onto
the next section, which provides exclusively a discussion .
of them. For example, in the final sentence in the section
reporting findings relating
to
nutritional beliefs , the
authors write:
Just as meat tended to imply strongly negative
connotations for respondents. concepts like fruit
and vegetable tended to elicit positive reactions,
although less frequently and in a more muted form
than might have been anticipated on the basis
ofthe analysis of the ideological underpinnings of
wholefoods consumption put forward by Atkinson
(1980,1983),
or on
the
basis
ofthe
analysis of
vegetarian food symbolism advanced by Twigg
(1983: 28). (Beardsworth and Kei11992: 276)
.. . , _ . , -
- - - - - : - - - , - ; - -
-- . ,-.- 1 - . - _ .. _ - _ ,.. - _ - - _ . ,_ . . , ,.;
In thisway, the presentation of the results ispointing for
ward to some themes that
are taken up in the following
sections and demonstrates the significance of certain
findings for some of the previously discussed literature.
Explaining contemporary vegetarianism
This section discusses the findings in the light of the
study s research questions in connection with food selec
tion and avoidance. The results are also related to many
of the ideas encountered in the two sections dealing
with
the literature. The authors develop an idea emerging
from their research, which they call food ambivalence .
This concept encapsulates for the authors the anxieties
and paradoxes concerning food that can be discerned in
the interview transcripts (for example, food can be con
st rued both as necessary for s trength and energy and
simultaneously as a source of illness). Vegetarianism is in
many respects a response to the dilemmas associated
with food ambivalence.
Conclusions
In ,this section, the authors return to many of the
ideas
and themes
that
have driven their research. Theyspell
Ut
the significance of the idea of food ambiValence,which is
probably the article s main conrribution to research
in
this
area. The final paragraphoutJines the importance of
f d
ambivalence for vegetarians, but the authors are
careful
not
imply
that
it is the sole reason for the adoptionof
vegetarianism. In the final sentence theywrite :
HOwever
for a significant segment of the population [vegetarian:
ism] appears to representa viabledevice for
re establishing
some degree of peace ofmind when contemplating some
of the darker implications of the carefully arranged
message on the dinner plate (Beardswonh and
eil
1992: 290). This sentence neatly encapsulates one ofthe
article s master themes the idea of vegetarianism as a
response to food ambivalence and alludes through the
reference to the carefully arranged message to
semiotic
analyses of meat and food.
lessons
As with Kelleyand DeGraafs article, it isuseful to
review
some of the lessons learned from this examination of
Beardsworth and Keil s article.
Just like the illustration of quantitative research writ-
ing, there are strong opening sentences, which attract
our
attention
and give a clear indication of the nature
and
content of the article.
The rationale of the research isclear y identified.Toa
large extent, this revolves around identifying the soci-
ological study of food and eating as a growing area of
research but noting the paucity of investigations of
vegetarianism.
Research questions are specified but they ate some
what more open-ended than in KeUey and DeGraaf s
article, which is in keeping with the general orienta
tion of qualitative researchers. The research questions
revolve around the issue of vegetarianism as a dletary
choice and the motivations for
that
choice.
The research design and methods are outlined and an
indication isgiven of the approach to analysis.The sec-
tion in which these issues are discussed demonstrates
greater transparency than is sometimes the case with
articles reporting qualitative research.
The presentation and discussion of the findings in
sections 5 and 6 are geared to the broad research
questions
that
motivated the researchers interest in
vegetarianism. However, section 6 also represents the
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
18/32
major opportunity for the idea of food ambivalence
and its dimensions to be articulated. The inductive
nature ofqualitative research means that the concepts
and theories that are generated from an investigation
must be clearly identified and discussed, as in this
case.
The conclusion elucidates in a more specific way the
significance of the results for the research questions. t
alsoexplores the implications of food ambivalence for
vegetarians, so thatone of the article s major theoret
icalcontributions is clearly identified and emphasized.
riting
upmixedmethods rese rch
partly because interest in and the practice of mixed
rnethodsresearch has gained momentumonly in relatively
recent times, it has few ifany writing conventions. More
particularly, it is difficult to say what an exemplary
or model mixed methods research journal article might
looklike. To a certain extent, it is bound to borrow some
ofthe conventions associated with writing up quantitative
and qualitative research in terms of needing to stan out
with a research focus in the sense of a research problem
and/or some research questions. Creswell and Tashakkori
(2007: 108), the editors of the Journal of Mixed
ethocis
Research
have suggested that good original/empirical
mixedmethods articles should be:
well-developed in both quantitative and qualitative
components (Creswell and Tashakkori 2007: 108) ;
and
more than reporting two distinct strands of quanti
tative and qualitative research; these studies must also
integrate.Iink, or connect these strands in some way
(Creswell and Tashakkori 2007: 108).
Theyactually add a third feature of good mixed methods
articles namely that they contribute to the literature on
mixedmethods research in some way. This seems a rather
tali order for many writers and researchers, so that I
Would tend to emphasize the
other
two features.
The first implies
that
the quantitative and the qualita
tive components of a mixed methods article should be
at the very least competently executed. This means that
in terms of the fundamental criteria for conducting good
quantitative and good qualitative research, mixed meth
ods research should conform to both quantitative and
qualitative research criteria. In terms ofwriting, itmeans
that, for each of the components,
t
should
be
clear what
the research questions were, how the samplingwas done,
Writing up social research 7
what the data collection technique(s) was or were, and
qow the data were analysed.
The second feature implies that a good mixed methods
article
w
be more than the sum of its parts. This issue
relates to a tendency that has been identified by some
writers (e.g. Bryman 2007c; O Cathain et al. 2007) for
some mixed methods researchers not tomake the best use
of their quantitative and qualitative data, in that they
often do not l nk the two sets of findings so that they
extract the maximum yield from their study.
As
Creswell
and Tashakkori (2007: 108)
put
it:
The expectation isthat, bythe end of the manuscript,
conclusions gleaned from the two strands are
integrated to provide a fullerunderstanding of the
phenomenon under study. Integration might be in
the form of comparing. contrasting, buildingon, or
embedding one type of conclusionwith the other.
To some extent, whenwriting up the results froma mixed
methods study, researchers might make it easier for
themselves
to
get across the extra yield associated with
their investigations if they make clear their rationales for
including both quantitative and qualitative components
in their overall research strategy. The issue of rationales
for conducting mixed methods research is one that was
addressed in Chapter 25.
Further advice on writing up mixed methods research
can be found in suggestions inCreswell and Plano Clark s
(2007: 161) delineation of a structure for a mixed rneth
ods journal
article. They suggest that the structure should
be along the following lines.
ntroduction
This would include such features as: a
statement of the research problem or issue; an exam
n t ~ n of the literature on the problem/issue; an
examination of the problems with the prior literature,
which might include indicating why a mixed methods
approach would be beneficial perhaps because much
of the previous research isbased mainly onjust quanti
tative or qualitative research; and the specificresearch
questions.
Methods This would include such features as: indicat
ing the rationale for the mixed methods approach; the
type of mixed methods design (see e.g. Morgan s
classification of approaches to mixed methods re
search
n
Thinking deeply 25.3) ; data collection and
data analysis methods; and indications of how the
qualityof the
data
can bejudged.
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
19/32
676 Writing up social research
;
ps and sk lls
r :0 { ;it
? rate V K ) ~ } i
z
duction ofethnographic texts.
Ethnographic texts are designed to convince readers
of the re lity of the events and situations described, and
the plausibility of the analyst s explanations. The ethno
graphic text must not simply present a set of findings: it
must provide an authoritative account of the group or
culture in question. In other words, the ethnographer
must convinceus that he or she has arrived at an account
ofsocial reality that has strong claims
10
truth.
The ethnographic text is permeated by stylistic and
rhetorical devices whereby the reader is
perSUaded
to
enter into a shared framework of facts and interpreta_
tions.observations and reflections,Just likethe
scientific
pape} and the kind ofapproach towriting found inrepol1_
ing quantitative social research, the ethnographer
typic
allyworks within a writing strategy that is imbued
with
re lism This simply means that the researcher
presents
an authoritative, dispassionate account that represents
an external, objective reality. In this respect, there isvery
littledifference between thewriting stylesofquantital
ive
.
and qualitative researchers. Van Maanen
(1988)
calls
ethnography texts that conform to these characteristics
re list t les These are the common type of ethnographic
writing, though he distinguishes other types (see Key
concept
27.5).
However, thefonn that this realismtakes
differs. VanMaanen distinguishes four characteristics of
realist tales: experiential authority; typical forms ; the
native s point ofview; and interpretive omnipotence.
e
Key concept 7 5
hree forms ethnographic writing
VanMaanen
1988)
hasdistinguished threemajortypesofethnographic
writing
.
1 Realisttoles
pp rentlydefinitive, confident, and dispassionate third person accounts ofa
culture
andof
the behaviour ofmembersofthat culture.
This
isthe mostprevalent
form
ofethnographic writing.
2 Confessionaltales personalized
accountsin which the ethnographeris
fully
implicated inthe data
gathe
ring
and
writing-up
processes .These are
warts-and-all
accountsofthe
trials
and tribulations of
doing
ethnography, Theyhave becomemoreprominentsincethe
1970s
and reflecta
growing emphasis
on
reflex
ivity in qualitative research inparticular.
Several
ofthe sourcesreferred to inChapter17are
confess
ional tales(e.g. Armstrong 1993: Hobbs1993; Giulianotti1995). However, confessional tales are
moreconcernedwithdetailing howresearchwascarried out thanwithpresenting
findings
.Very oftenthe
confessional tale istold inone context(suchasan invited chapter ina bookofsimilar tales), butthe main
findings
arewrittenup in realist tale
form.
3 Impressionisttoles-accounts that placea heavyemphasis on
words,
metaphors, phrasings, and . . . the
expansive
recall
of
fieldwork
experience
Van
Maanen
1988
:
102).
Thereisa
heavy
emphasis on stor
ies
of
dramatic eventsthat
provide
representational meansof cracking open thecultureand the field
worker s
wayof
knowing
it
Van
Maanen1988:
102)
. However, asVanMaanen 1988: 106) notes,
impress ionist tales
re typ
ically
enclosed
within
realist,or perhapsmorefrequently,
confessional
tales,
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
28/32
Experiential authority
Justas
in
much quantitative research writing, the author
disaPpears from view when writing ethnography. We are
told w h at members of a g ro up say and do, and they are
theonly people directlyvisible in the text. The author pro
videsa narrative
n
which he or she isno longerto be seen.
a result, an impression is conveyed that the findings
presented are what
y
reasonable, similarly placed
researcher would have found . s readers, we have to
accept that this is
what
the ethnographer saw and heard
whileworking as a participant observer or whatever. The
personalsubjectivity of the author/ethnographer s essen
tiallyplayed down y this strategy. The possibility that
the fieldworker may have his or
her
own biases or m y
i ~ v become too involved with the people being studied
issuppressed. To this end, when writing up the results of
their ethnographic work, authors play up their academic
credentials and qualifications, their previous experience,
and so on. All this enhances the degree to which the
author s account can be relied upon. The author/ethno
grapher can then appear as a reliable witness .
A f urther element of exp er iential autho rity is that,
when describing their methods, ethnographersinvariably
makea greatdeal of the intensiveness of the research that
they carried
out they
spent so many months in the field,
had conversations and interviews with countless indi
viduals, wo rk ed h ar d to establis h r ap po rt, and so on.
These features are also added y drawing the reader s
attention to such hardships as the inconvenience of the
fieldwork the da nge r, the p oo r food, the disruptive
effect on normal life, the feelings of isolation and loneli
ness, and so on. Alsoworth mentioning are the extensive
quotations from conversations and interviews that invari
ably form part of the ethnographic report. These are also
obviously important ingredients of the author s use ofevi -
en e to support points. However, they are a mechanism
for establishing the credibility of the report in
that
they
demonstrate the author s ability to encourage people to
talk and so demonstrate that he or she achieved rapport
with them. The copious descriptive
details of
places,
patterns of behaviour, contexts, and so on can also be
viewed as a means of piling on the sense of the author
being an ideally placed witness for alI the findings that
have been uncovered.
Typical forms
The author often writes about typical forms ofinstitutions
or of patterns of behaviour.
hat
is h ap pening here is
that the autho r is g en eralizing about a number of recur
ring features of the group
n
question to create a
typical
form t at that feature takes. He or she may use examples
based on particular incidents or people, but basically the
emphasis is upon the general. For example, in Taylor s
1993) conclusion to her ethnographicresearch on female
drug users, wh ich wa s cited several times in Chapter 17,
we encounter findings such as these; Yetthe control exer
cised over women through the threat to remove their chil
dren highlights a major factor differentiating female and
male d ru g users . Unlike male drug users, female drug
users, like many other women, have two careers: one in
the public sphere and one inthe private, domestic sphere
Taylor 1993: 154) . This ismeant to portraydrug users in
general, so that individuals are important onlyin so far as
they represent such general
tendencies,
The native s point of view
The point has been made several times
that
one of the dis
tinguishing features of much qualitative research s the
commitment to see ing t hrough the eyes of the people
being studied. This isan important feature for qualitative
researchers because it ispan ofa strategyofgettingat the
meaning of social reality from the perspective of those
being stud ied. However, it also represents an importantele
ment increating a sense ofauthoritativeness on the
pan
of
the ethnographer. After all, claiming that he or she takes
the native s point of view and sees through his or her eyes
means that he or she is in an excellent position to speak
authoritatively about the group inquestion. The very fact
that the ethnographer has taken the native s point of view
testifies to the fact that he or she is well placed to write
definitively about the group in question. Realist tales fre
quently include numerous references to the steps taken
by the ethnographer to get close tothe people stud ied and
his or her success in this regard . Thus, for her research on
female drug users, Taylor 1993: 16) writes:
Events Iwitnessed or took part in ranged from the
very routine sitting around drinking coffee and eating
junk food) to accompanying various women on visits
to DSS [Department of SocialSecurity] officesor to
the
HIV
clinic; Iaccompanied them when they were
in court, and even went flat-hunting with one woman.
went shopping with some, helping them choose
clothes for th ir children and presents for their
friends. I visited
them
in their homes. rehabilitation
centres. and maternity wards, sat with them through
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
29/32
ritingup so i l research
withdrawals, watched
them
using drugs, and
accompanied
them when
they
went
scoring
buying drugs) . Taylor 1993: 16)
Similarly, referring
to
his
study
of a factory in
a
small
Nelsh community, Delbridge
1998: 19)
writes:
stood
out
l i ~
a sore. thumb
. .
, Myactual
participation
i n
the tasks which faced the workers
helped to break down
th e
barriers and several people
approached me over
th e
weeks and told me that
when they actually saw me sitting there alongside
them day after day they began to have some respect
forwhat was doing. It was important to be able to
develop some shared ground.
He goes on to s y
th e
relationships developed over long hours working
on the shop floor, chatting over lunch. moaning about
th e
weather, and so on. In
th e
close-knit village
community, I soon got
involv
in long conversations
about
families,mine
an d
theirs , which was a most
unusual topic in the social world from which Ihad
come the common ground we found in our family
livescemented relationships and founded them on
something
other
than a
student/subject
basis.
Delbridge 1998: 20)
These passages
ar e
very effective in demonstrating
how the
ethnographer
was able gradually to
trans
f o ~ from an outsider to an insider with similar
experi
ences and concerns.
s
such. his credibility as
someone
who can speak authoritatively about these workers and
their
lives is enhanced.
nterpretative omnipotence
When
writing
up
an ethnography, the author rarely
pre
sents possible alternative interpretations of an event
pattern
of behaviour. Instead, the phenomenon in
ques.
tion is presented as having a single meaning or signi.
ficance, which the fieldworker alone has cracked. Indeed
th e
~ v i e n e provided is carefully
marshalled
to s u p p o ~
th e
iingular interpretation that is placed on the
eVent
or pattern of behaviour. We are presented with an
inevitability. It seems obvious or inevitable that someone
would
draw
the inferences
that
the author has drawn
when
faced
wit
such clear-cut evidence.
These four characteristics of realist tales imply that
what
the researcher did as a researcher is only one
pan
of creating a sense of having figured out the nature of
a culture .
t
is also very much to do with how the
researcher represents
what
he or she did through
writing
about
ethnography. For the postmodernist position, any
realist tale is merely one spin that is one version, that
can be or has
been
formulated in relation to the culture in
question.
6
he klist
ssuesto consider for writin up a piece o research
o Have you clearly specifiedyour research questions?
o
Have you clearly indicated how the literature you have read relates to your research questions?
o
Isyour discussion ofthe literature critical and organized so that it isnot justa summary ofwhat you
have read?
o Have you clearly outlined your research design and your research methods. including:
o
why you chose a particular research design?
o why you chose a particular research method?
o
how you selected your research participants?
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
30/32
o whetherthere
were
any
issues
to dowith cooperation (e.g,
r spo s rates ?
o whyyouimplemented your
research
in,aparticularway(e.g, howthe interviewquestions
relateto your
research
questions,
why you
observed
participants in particular
situations
,why
your
focus
groupguide
asked
thequestionsin a particularwayandorder ?
o
if your
research
required
access
to anorganization. howandonwhat
basis was
agreement
for
access
forthcoming?
o
steps
you tookto ensure that your research
was
ethicallyresponsible;
o howyou
analysed
your
data?
o anydifficulties youencountered in the implementation of your research
approach.
o Have
you presented your datain a mannerthat relates to your research
questions?
o
Doesyour
discussion
ofyour
findings
showhowthey relateto your
research questions?
o
Doesyour
discussion
ofyour
findings
showhow they
shed
light on the literaturethat you
presented?
o
Are the interpretations of the datathat youofferfully supportedwith
tables,
figures,
or
segments
from
transcripts?
o
Ifyouhave
presented tables
and/or
figures, re
they properlylabelledwith a title and
number
?
o Ifyou
have presented tables
and/or
figures
, arethey commented uponin
your discussion?
o Doyour conclusions clearlyallowthereaderto establish what your research contributes to the
literature?
o
Haveyouexplained the limitationsofyour
study?
o
Doyourconclus ions
consist
solely ofa summary ofyour findings? If they do,rewrite them
o
Doyour
conclus
ions
make
clearthe
answers
to your
research questions?
o
Does yourpresentation of the
findings
andthe
discussion
allow aclearargumentandnarratveto
presented
to the
reader?
o
Have
youbrokenup the text in
each
chapterwith appropriate
subheadings?
o Doesyourwriting avoid
sexist
, racist.and
disablist
language?
o
Have
youincludedall appendices thatyoumight needto provide(e.g. interview schedule, letters
requesting
access
, communications with
research
participants)?
o
Have
youchecked that your list of references
includes
the items
referred
to inyourtext?
o
Haveyou
checked
that your listof
references follows precisely
thestylethat yourinstitution
requires?
o
Have
youfollowedyoursupervisor s
suggestions
whenheor she has commented onyourdraft
chapters?
o
Haveyou gotpeopleother thanyour
supervisor
to readyourdraft
chapters
for
you?
o Haveyouchecked to
ensure
that there isnot e
xcessive
useof
jargon?
o Doyouprovide clear sgnposts in the course ofwriting,sothat
readers
areclearaboutwhat to
expect
nextandwhy it is
there
o Have
you
ensured
that yourinstitution s requirements forsubmitting
projects
arefullymet in
terms
of such
issues
asword length(sothat it isneithertoo longnor tooshort)andwhetheranabstract and
tableof
contents
are
required?
8/10/2019 Bryman, Alan_Social Reseach Methods4325423.pdf
31/32
e
o Have you ensured that you do not quote excessively when presenting the literature?
o Have you fully acknowledged the work of others so that you cannot be accusedof plagiarism?
o Isthere a good correspondence between the title of your project and
ts
contents?
o
Have you acknowledged the help of others where this isappropriate e .g, your supervisor.
p op
who may have helped with interviews, people who read your drafts)?
, ,
y points
Good writing is probably just as important as good research practice. Indeed. it is probably better
thought of as a
part
of good research practice.
. .
Clear s tr uc tu re and s ta te me nt of y ou r research t ue stions are important components of writing up
research,
Be sensitive to the ways in w hi ch w ri te rs seek to persuade us of t he ir point s of v ie w.
The study of rhetoric and writing strategies generally teaches us that the writings of scientistsand
social scientists do more than simply report findings. They are designed to convince and to
persuade.
The emphasis on rhetoric is not m ea nt to imply that there isno external social reality; it merely
suggests that our understanding of
that
reality isprofoundly influenced by the ways it is represented
by writers.
While
postmodernism has exerted a particular influence on this last point, writers working within
other
traditions have also contributed to it.
The basic structure
of
and the writing strategies employed in most quantitative and qualitative
research articles are broadly similar.
We need to get away from the idea that rhetoric and the desire to persuade others of the validity of
our work are somehow bad things. They are not. We all want to get our points acrossand to
persuade our readers that we have got things right. The question is do we do it well? Do we make
the best possible case?We all have to persuade others
that
we have got the right angle on things;
the t ri ck is to do it well. So, when you write an essayor dissertation, do bear in
mind
the significance
of your
writing
strategy.
u stions r r vi w
Recommended