| Abstract: | Qualitative sociologists typically privilege fieldwork over interviews. What happens to fieldworkers who now ask questions but no longer hang out? What about those who rely exclusively on intensive interviewing while participant observation remains the standard? The authors examine the negative consequences of privileging fieldwork for identity and practice, the unique contributions of in-depth interviewing, and the differences in the tales that fieldworkers and interviewers tell. An inclusive identity anchored to the analytical assumptions fieldworkers and interviewers share would increase qualitative researchers' confidence and lead them to do better work. |
