1932

Abstract

The conventions ethnographers follow to gather, write about, and store their data are increasingly out of sync with contemporary research expectations and social life. Despite technological advancements that allow ethnographers to observe their subjects digitally and record interactions, few follow subjects online and many still reconstruct quotes from memory. Amid calls for data transparency, ethnographers continue to conceal subjects’ identities and keep fieldnotes private. But things are changing. We review debates, dilemmas, and innovations in ethnography that have arisen over the past two decades in response to new technologies and calls for transparency. We focus on emerging conversations around how ethnographers record, collect, anonymize, verify, and share data. Considering the replication crisis in the social sciences, we ask how ethnographers can enable others to reanalyze their findings. We address ethical implications and offer suggestions for how ethnographers can develop standards for transparency that are consistent with their commitment to their subjects and interpretive scholarship.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-090320-124805
2021-07-31
2025-02-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/soc/47/1/annurev-soc-090320-124805.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-090320-124805&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abramson CM, Dohan D. 2015. Beyond text: using arrays to represent and analyze ethnographic data. Sociol. Methodol. 45:1272–319
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abramson CM, Joslyn J, Rendle KA, Garrett S, Dohan D. 2018. The promises of computational ethnography. Ethnography 19:2254–84
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Abu-Lughod L. 2008. Writing Women's Worlds: Bedouin Stories Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Am. Anthropol. Assoc 2004. Statement on Ethnography and Institutional Review Boards Arlington, VA: Am. Anthropol. Assoc http://research.fiu.edu/documents/irb/documents/ethnographyReview.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Am. Sociol. Assoc 2018. Code of Ethics Washington, DC: Am. Sociol. Assoc https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/asa_code_of_ethics-june2018a.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Anderson E 1978. A Place on the Corner Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Anspach RR, Mizrachi N. 2006. The field worker's fields: ethics, ethnography, and medical sociology. Soc. Health Illn. 28:6713–31
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Armstrong E, Hamilton L 2015. Paying for the Party Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Autry R. 2020. Sociology's race problem. Aeon Novemb. 26. https://aeon.co/essays/urban-ethnographers-do-harm-in-speaking-for-black-communities
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Becker H. 1967. Whose side are we on?. Soc. Probl. 14:3239–47
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Benjamin DJ, Berger JO, Johannesson M, Nosek BA, Wagenmakers E-J et al. 2018. Redefine statistical significance. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2:6–10
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Benzecry C. 2011. The Opera Fanatic: Ethnography of an Obsession Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Besbris M. 2020. Upsold: Real Estate Agents, Prices, and Neighborhood Inequality Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bishop L. 2005. Protecting respondents and enabling data sharing: reply to Parry and Mauthner. Sociology 39:2333–36
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bishop L. 2009. Ethical sharing and reuse of qualitative data. Aust. J. Soc. Issues 44:3255–72
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Boelen WAM. 1992. Street corner society: Cornerville revisited. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 21:111–51
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bosk CL. 2008. What Would You Do? Juggling Bioethics and Ethnography Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bosk CL, De Vries RG. 2004. Bureaucracies of mass deception: institutional review boards and the ethics of ethnographic research. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 595:1249–63
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bourgois P. 1996.. In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bourgois P. 2009. Righteous Dopefiend Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Brayne S. 2014. Surveillance and system avoidance: criminal justice contact and institutional attachment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 79:3367–91
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Brayne S. 2020. Predict and Surveil New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Broughton C. 2015. Boom, Bust, Exodus New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Browning C, Wallace D, Feinberg S, Cagney K. 2006. Neighborhood social processes, physical conditions, and disaster-related mortality: the case of the 1995 Chicago heat wave. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:661–78
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Budd J. 2016. Sociology professor's ethics under scrutiny. Columbia Spectator Novemb. 15. https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2012/12/03/sociology-professors-ethics-under-scrutiny/
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Burawoy M. 2003. Revisits: an outline of a theory of reflexive ethnography. Am. Sociol. Rev. 68:5645–79
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Burawoy M. 2019. Empiricism and its fallacies. Contexts 18:147–53
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Cahill SE, Distler W, Lachowetz C, Meaney A, Tarallo R, Willard T. 1985. Meanwhile backstage: public bathrooms and the interaction order. Urban Life 14:133–58
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Calarco JM. 2018. Negotiating Opportunities: How the Middle Class Secures Advantages in School New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Carusi A, Jirotka M. 2009. From data archive to ethical labyrinth. Qual. Res. 9:3285–98
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Cent. Qual. Multi-Method Inq 2020. Sharing data @ Qualitative Data Repository (QDR) Inf. Sheet, Cent. Qual. Multi-Method Inq., Syracuse Univ. Syracuse, NY: https://qdr.syr.edu/drupal_data/public/Sharing_Data_at_QDR.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Chauvette A, Schick-Makaroff K, Molzahn AE. 2019. Open data in qualitative research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 18:1–6
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Clerge O. 2019. The New Noir: Race, Identity, Diaspora in Black Suburbia Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Clifford J, Marcus GE. 1986. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography: A School of American Research Advanced Seminar Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Cohen P. 2015. On the ropes (Goffman review). Family Inequality Blog May 28. https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/on-the-ropes-goffman-review/
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Contreras R. 2019. Transparency and unmasking issues in ethnographic crime research: methodological considerations. Sociol. Forum 34:2293–312
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Crosas M, Gautier J, Karcher S, Kirilova D, Otalora G, Schwartz A. 2018. Data policies of highly-ranked social science journals. SocArXiv, March 30. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/9h7ay
    [Crossref]
  38. Desmond M. 2009. On the Fireline: Living and Dying with Wildland Firefighters Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Desmond M. 2017. Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City New York: Crown
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Duneier M. 1999. Sidewalk New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Duneier M. 2006. Ethnography, the ecological fallacy, and the 1995 Chicago heat wave. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:4679–88
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Duneier M. 2007. On the legacy of Elliott Liebow and Carol Stack. Focus 25:133–38
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Duneier M. 2011. How not to lie with ethnography. Soc. Methods 41:11–11
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Edin K, Schaefer HL. 2015. $2 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Elbow S. 2015. Updated: UW sociology prof responds to critic who accused her of ‘major felony’ during research. Capital Times June 3. https://madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/steven_elbow/updated-uw-sociology-prof-responds-to-critic-who-accused-her-of-major-felony-during-research/article_45d5b0eb-ea57-5de4-89b1-848a3bc7daae.html
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL. 2011. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Emmelhainz C. 2015. Ethnographic field data 3: preserving and sharing ethnographic data. Savage Minds Blog Aug. 28. https://savageminds.org/2015/08/28/ethnographic-field-data-3-preserving-and-sharing-ethnographic-data/
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Fine GA, Abramson CM. 2020. Ethnography in the time of COVID-19: vectors and the vulnerable. Etnogr. Ric. Qual. 2:165–74
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Fine GA, Cohen P, Jerolmack C, Khan S, Lubet S, Pattillo M. 2018. Panel discussion: Author meets critic. Northwest. . J. Law Soc. Policy 13:3107–37 https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1168&context=njlsp
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Forman J Jr. 2014. The society of fugitives. The Atlantic Oct. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/the-society-of-fugitives/379328/
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Freese J. 2007. Replication standards for quantitative social science: Why not sociology?. Sociol. Methods Res. 36:2153–72
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Freese J, Peterson D. 2017. Replication in social science. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 43:147–65
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Gans HJ. 1965. The Levittowners: Ways of Life and Politics in a New Suburban Community New York: Columbia Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Goffman A. 2009. On the run: wanted men in a Philadelphia ghetto. Am. Sociol. Rev. 74:3339–57
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Goffman A. 2014. On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Grasmuck S. 2005. Protecting Home: Class, Race, and Masculinity in Boys’ Baseball New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Guenther KM. 2009. The politics of names: rethinking the methodological and ethical significance of naming people, organizations, and places. Qual. Res. 9:4411–21
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hammersley M. 1997. Qualitative data archiving. Sociology 31:1131–42
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Hanson R, Richards P. 2019. Harassed: Gender, Bodies, and Ethnographic Research Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Herndon J, O'Reilly R 2016. Data sharing policies in social sciences academic journals. Databrarianship L Kellam, K Thompson 219–43 Chicago: Am. Libr. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hidalgo A, Khan S. 2020. Blindsight ethnography and exceptional moments. Etnog. Ric. Qual. 2:185–93
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Ho K. 2009. Liquidated: An Ethnography of Wall Street Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Hoang KK. 2015. Dealing in Desire: Asian Ascendancy, Western Decline, and the Hidden Currencies of Global Sex Work Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Jack A. 2019. The Privileged Poor Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Jerolmack C. 2013. The Global Pigeon Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Jerolmack C. 2021. Up to Heaven and Down to Hell: Freedom, Fracking, and Community in an American Town Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Jerolmack C, Khan S. 2014. Talk is cheap: ethnography and the attitudinal fallacy. Sociol. Methods Res. 43:2178–209
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Jerolmack C, Murphy AK. 2019. 2017. The ethical dilemmas and social scientific trade-offs of masking in ethnography. Sociol. Methods Res. 48:4801–27
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Jerolmack C, Walker E. 2018. Please in my backyard: quiet mobilization in support of fracking in an Appalachian community. Am. J. Sociol. 124:2479–516
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Jones N, Raymond G. 2012. The camera rolls: using third-party video in field research. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 642:1109–23
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Kaiser K. 2009. Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. Qual. Health Res. 19:111632–41
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Kaminer A. 2012. Columbia's gang scholar lives on the edge. New York Times Novemb 30: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/nyregion/sudhir-venkatesh-columbias-gang-scholar-lives-on-the-edge.html
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Katz J. 2001. How Emotions Work Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Katz J. 2019. Armor for ethnographers. Sociol. Forum 34:1264–75
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Khan S. 2011. Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul's School Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Khan S. 2019. The subpoena of ethnographic data. Sociol. Forum 34:1253–63
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Kulz C. 2017. Factories for Learning: Making Race, Class and Inequality in the Neoliberal Academy Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Lacy KR. 2007. Blue-Chip Black: Race, Class, and Status in the New Black Middle Class Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Lane J. 2018. The Digital Street Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Lareau A. 2011. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Lee J. 2016. Blowin’ Up: Rap Dreams in South Central Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Lee RM. 2004. Recording technologies and the interview in sociology, 1920–2000. Sociology 38:5869–89
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Levine J. 2021. Constructing Community Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Lewis-Kraus G. 2016. The trials of Alice Goffman. New York Times Jan. 12. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/magazine/the-trials-of-alice-goffman.html
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Liebow E. 1967. Tally's Corner: A Study of Negro Streetcorner Men Boston: Little, Brown
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Livne R. 2019. Values at the End of Life: The Logic of Palliative Care Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Lubet S. 2018. Interrogating Ethnography: Why Evidence Matters New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Marwell NP. 2007. Bargaining for Brooklyn: Community Organizations in the Entrepreneurial City Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Mascia-Lees FE, Sharpe P, Cohen CB. 1989. The postmodernist turn in anthropology: cautions from a feminist perspective. Signs J. Women Cult. Soc. 15:17–33
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Meadow T. 2018. Trans Kids: Being Gendered in the Twenty-First Century Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Milofsky C. 2008. Smallville: Institutionalizing Community in Twenty-First-Century America Lebanon, NH: Univ. Press N. Engl.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Mojola SA. 2014. Love, Money, and HIV: Becoming a Modern African Woman in the Age of AIDS Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Moravcsik A. 2010. Active citation: a precondition for replicable qualitative research. PS 43:29–35
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Moravcsik A. 2014. Transparency: the revolution in qualitative research. PS 47:48–53
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Mose Brown T, de Casanova EM 2014. Representing the language of the ‘other’: African American Vernacular English in ethnography. Ethnography 15:2208–31
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Mukungu K. 2017. How can you write about a person who does not exist? Rethinking pseudonymity and informed consent in life history research. Soc. Sci. 6:386
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Murphy AK, Jerolmack C. 2016. Ethnographic masking in an era of data transparency. Contexts 15:214–17
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Murthy D. 2008. Digital ethnography: an examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology 42:5837–55
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med 2018. Open science by design: realizing a vision for 21st century research Consens. Study Rep Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Nespor J. 2000. Anonymity and place in qualitative inquiry. Qual. Inq. 6:4546–69
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, Borsboom D, Bowman SD et al. 2015. Promoting an open research culture. Science 348:62421422–25
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Pacewicz J. 2016. Partisans and Partners: The Politics of the Post-Keynesian Society Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Parry M. 2015. Conflict over sociologist's narrative puts spotlight on ethnography. Chronicle of Higher Education June 12. https://www.chronicle.com/article/conflict-over-sociologists-narrative-puts-spotlight-on-ethnography/
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Parry O, Mauthner NS. 2004. Whose data are they anyway? Practical, legal and ethical issues in archiving qualitative research data. Sociology 38:1139–52
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Pattillo M. 2013. Black Picket Fences: Privilege and Peril Among the Black Middle Class Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Pool R. 2017. The verification of ethnographic data. Ethnography 18:3281–86
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Ralph L. 2014. Renegade Dreams: Living Through Injury in Gangland Chicago Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Reich JA. 2015. Old methods and new technologies: social media and shifts in power in qualitative research. Ethnography 16:4394–415
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Reyes V. 2018. Three models of transparency in ethnographic research: naming places, naming people, and sharing data. Ethnography 19:2204–26
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Reyes V. 2019. Global Borderlands: Fantasy, Violence, and Empire in Subic Bay, Philippines Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Rhoads RA. 2020.. “ Whales tales” on the run: anonymizing ethnographic data in an age of openness. Cult. Stud. Crit. Methodol. 20:5402–13
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Rios V. 2011. Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys New York: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Sanchez-Jankowski M. 2016. Cracks in the Pavement Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Saunders EN. 2014. Transparency without tears: a pragmatic approach to transparent security studies research. Secur. Stud. 23:4689–98
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Schacter D. 1999. The seven sins of memory. Am. Psychol. 54:3182–203
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Scheper-Hughes N. 2000. Ire in Ireland. Ethnography 1:1117–40
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Seim J. 2020. Bandage, Sort, and Hustle: Ambulance Crews on the Front Lines of Urban Suffering Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Sharkey P. 2015. Review of On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City, by Alice Goffman. Soc. Serv. Rev. 89:2407–46
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Sharpe C. 2014. Black life, annotated. New Inquiry Aug. 8. https://thenewinquiry.com/black-life-annotated/
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Shedd C. 2015. Unequal City New York: Russell Sage Found.
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Sherman J. 2009. Those Who Work, Those Who Don't: Poverty, Morality, and Family in Rural America Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Shklovski I, Vertesi J. 2013.. “ Un-Googling” publications: the ethics and problems of anonymization. CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems2169–78 New York: ACM
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Singal J. 2015. The internet accused Alice Goffman of faking details in her study of a black neighborhood. I went to Philadelphia to check. The Cut June 18. https://www.thecut.com/2015/06/i-fact-checked-alice-goffman-with-her-subjects.html
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Small ML. 2009a. How many cases do I need?. Ethnography 10:15–38
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Small ML. 2009b. Unanticipated Gains: Origins of Network Inequality in Everyday Life New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Small ML. 2015. De-exoticizing ghetto poverty: on the ethics of representation in urban ethnography. City Community 14:4352–58
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Small ML. 2019. Someone to Talk To New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Small ML, Manduca RA, Johnston WR. 2018. Ethnography, neighborhood effects, and the rising heterogeneity of poor neighborhoods across cities. City Community 17:3565–89
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Stack C. 1974. All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community New York: Basic
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Stein A. 2010. Sex, truths, and audiotape: anonymity and the ethics of exposure in public ethnography. J. Contemp. Ethnogr. 39:5554–68
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Stuart F. 2020. Ballad of the Bullet: Gangs, Drill Music, and the Power of Online Infamy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Tavory I. 2016. Summoned: Identification and Religious Life in a Jewish Neighborhood Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Tilley L, Woodthorpe K. 2011. Is it the end for anonymity as we know it?. Qual. Res. 11:2197–212
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Timmermans S. 2019. Hypocriticism. Contemp. Sociol 48:3264–66
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Tornow J, Martonosi M, Marrongelle K, Tilbury D, Easterling W et al. 2020. Dear colleague letter: open science for research data Publ. 20-068 Natl. Sci. Found Washington, DC: https://nsf.gov/pubs/2020/nsf20068/nsf20068.jsp
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Tsai AC, Kohrt BA, Matthews LT, Betancourt TS, Lee JK et al. 2016. Promises and pitfalls of data sharing in qualitative research. Soc. Sci. Med. 169:191–98
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Turkle S. 2011. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other New York: Basic
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Van Cleve N. 2016. Crook County: Racism and Injustice in America's Largest Criminal Court Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Van Maanen J. 2011. Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Vargas R. 2016. Wounded City: Violent Turf Wars in a Chicago Barrio New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Venkatesh SA. 2008. Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets New York: Penguin
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Walford G. 2009. The practice of writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Ethnogr. Educ. 4:2117–30
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Walford G. 2018. The impossibility of anonymity in ethnographic research. Qual. Res. 18:5516–25
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Wingfield AH. 2019. Flatlining: Race, Work, and Health Care in the New Economy Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Wutich A, Bernard HR. 2016. Sharing qualitative data & analysis. With whom and how widely? A response to “Promises and pitfalls of data sharing in qualitative research. .” Soc. Sci. Med. 169:199–200
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Young C. 2018. Model uncertainty and the crisis in science. Socius 4:1–7
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Zaloom C. 2006. Out of the Pits: Traders and Technology from Chicago to London Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-090320-124805
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error