9. Mitchell Duneier, “Transparency in Ethnography.”
10. At the time, I was at Temple University, where I regularly taught a class of 110 students, with the equivalent of one 20-hour per week teaching assistant. I taught one weekly discussion section, and I did one-third of the grading of essay midterms, papers, and finals. At the University of Pennsylvania, where I teach the same kind of course, I have two teaching assistants, each working twenty hours per week, and a smaller enrollment (100 students).
11. See Mario Luis Small, “How Many Cases Do I Need?,” on the size of projects.
12. Although beyond the scope of this chapter, there have been new calls for “scientific standards” in qualitative research. See reports by the Sociology Program of the National Science Foundation: Charles Ragin, Joane Nagel, and Patricia White, Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research; and Michèle Lamont and Patricia White, Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research; as well as the critical essay by Howard Becker, “How to Find Out How to Do Qualitative Research,” on these NSF reports. Some researchers have responded to this pressure for standards by assembling very large-scale qualitative interview studies (e.g., 300 cases) where the principal investigator herself or himself does proportionally little interviewing. In addition, many of these studies do not include any participant-observation. With this approach, qualitative researchers are seeking to avoid the limitations of qualitative research (i.e., small, purposive samples). But, too often, the results of these kinds of large-scale studies are unsatisfying; they do not provide the “thick description” that is a hallmark of ethnographic work; see Clifford Geertz, Interpretations of Cultures. Nor do they provide sufficient attention to the meaning of events. For a critical assessment of these issues, see Annette Lareau, Doing Ethnography in the Real World. Of course, there are many different types of qualitative work; see the review of various approaches in Denzin and Lincoln, SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, as well as discussions of ethnography in Smith, Institutional Ethnography; Shulamit Reinharz and Lynn Davidman, Feminist Methods in Social Research; Hammersly and Atkinson, Ethnography; Iddo Tavory and Stefan Timmermans, “Two Cases of Ethnography”; Michael Burawoy, The Extended Case Method. See also Elinor Ochs et al., “Video Ethnography and Ethnoarchaeological Tracking”; Stephen A. Matthews, Linda M. Burton, and James Detwiler, “Geo-ethnography.”
13. In developing and sustaining ethnographic relationships, it is helpful to bring food, provide reciprocity in some way, or (if possible) offer an honorarium for participation. If cost is an issue, there are also inexpensive options such as framed photos, CDs burned at home, or photo albums.
14. I taped conversations, conducted separately, with Wendy Driver, Ms. Driver, Mr. Handlon, and Ms. Yanelli. Mr. Yanelli refused to be taped, although he did listen from the living room as I taped my discussion with Ms. Yanelli in the kitchen.
15. After drafting a brief summary of each family’s reaction to the book, I mailed four of the nine families a package with a copy of my draft of their reaction and a letter inviting them to either write their own summary of how they reacted (which I promised would be reproduced, unedited, in the second edition of the book) or edit my version. As a friendly gesture, I also included a box of chocolates. I had working addresses for all the families except the Drivers and McAllisters. The McAllisters had moved again, and the telephone numbers I had were no longer in service. I tried to reach them by leaving a message on a relative’s answering machine, but this strategy was not successful. The Drivers also had moved; I could not reach them via Facebook, telephone white pages, or Google. (Later, Wendy contacted me via Facebook. She updated me on her family and work status. When I suggested that we get together, however, she declined.) Rather than mailing a package to the Yanellis, I went to see the family (bringing my draft summary, beer, and chocolate). Mr. Yanelli said my draft was “on the money,” an accurate statement of their feelings “at that time.” I called the Brindles and left a message; Ms. Brindle immediately returned my call. I later e-mailed the description to her eldest daughter, who read it to her over the phone. Ms. Brindle approved it. I also e-mailed Ms. Taylor. At her suggestion, and with her permission, I replaced my summary with her response to me. For clarification, I added an introductory note and edited her message, particularly for length. The responses of the remaining families varied. The Marshalls contacted me in a warm e-mail; both Ms. Marshall and Stacey wrote to me (separately), saying that they were “comfortable” with the portrait. The Tallingers also responded. Mr. Tallinger edited the summary I had drafted; his edits made it clearer and more precise. His e-mail message was friendly and humorous (he said that they were doing “concerted cultivation” on me). I spoke with Ms. Handlon by phone. She was cool. She said that she had received the package and had given it to Melanie. I indicated that the letter was addressed to her and her husband as well as to Melanie. She said that she would look at it. She did not get back to me. The Williamses did not reply either.
16. Ms. Tallinger ended contact in 2004. In January 2010, though, she responded, in a friendly manner, to a follow-up e-mail I had sent to the family about a package I had sent to the home (with a box of chocolates and a description of the family’s reaction to the book). Correspondence regarding the Tallingers’ reaction was handled exclusively by Mr. Tallinger, however.
17. I did not hear directly from Melanie about how she felt about the book or its description of her. However, she came home while I was interviewing her father. I was sitting on the floor, talking across the coffee table to Mr. Handlon. I stood up and, as Melanie stood next to the piano, told her that I had learned that the book had upset her and that I was very sorry about that. She (keeping her face impassive) nodded but did not chat. My efforts to draw her out were not successful. She disappeared into the back of the house, and I continued my interview with her father.
18. The Williamses’ reaction is more vague than the reactions of the other families. My suspicion is that they were offended by an endnote in the first edition (n. 18, to Chapter 6). In the note, a fieldworker expresses discomfort with a mock game of peek-a-boo in which the parents treat Alexander as if he were a very young child. In addition, from the beginning, Mr. Williams had been unenthusiastic about being in the study; he saw it (correctly enough) as an “invasion of privacy.” The family’s portrait may have made him feel vindicated. Given the e-mail exchange with Ms. Williams, I agonized over whether I should contact them again. In the end, I felt I needed to give them a chance to say their piece (if they wished). I sent them the same sort of package I mailed to the other families, inviting them to summarize their reaction to the book (or edit my draft). I enclosed a CD with a copy of my summary and their e-mail. I received no response.
19. When Stacey was at college a couple of years later, her roommate was reading the book for a class. Stacey revealed that she was in the book.
20. Although Wendy had the book open at this time, the transcription of the tape shows that she made a number of minor modifications as she read the piece aloud. Thus, the quote does not follow the text exactly. Also, in the original field note, this quotation was longer and made it clear that her mother, stepfather, and brother stopped what they were doing, looked at her, and then (after she was finished speaking) returned to looking at the television. Wendy was upset because she felt that the attention her family gave to her was not sufficiently emphasized in the text.