Editing Ethnography (section)

=== Evaluating ethnography ===
The ethnographic methodology is not usually evaluated in terms of philosophical standpoint (such as [[positivism]] and [[Appearance emotionalism|emotionalism]]). Ethnographic studies need to be evaluated in some manner. No consensus has been developed on evaluation standards, but Richardson (2000, p.&nbsp;254)<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Richardson |first1=Laurel |title=Evaluating Ethnography |journal=Qualitative Inquiry |date=29 June 2016 |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=253–255 |doi=10.1177/107780040000600207 |s2cid=220899430 }}</ref> provides five criteria that ethnographers might find helpful. Jaber F. Gubrium and James A. Holstein's (1997) monograph, ''The New Language of Qualitative Method,'' discusses forms of ethnography in terms of their "methods talk".

# ''Substantive contribution'': "Does the piece contribute to our understanding of social life?"
# ''Aesthetic merit'': "Does this piece succeed aesthetically?"
# ''Reflexivity'': "How did the author come to write this text...Is there adequate self-awareness and self-exposure for the reader to make judgments about the point of view?"<ref>For post-colonial critiques of ethnography from various locations, see essays in Prem Poddar et al, ''Historical Companion to Postcolonial Literatures--Continental Europe and its Empires,'' Edinburgh University Press, 2008.</ref>
# ''Impact'': "Does this affect me? Emotionally? Intellectually?" Does it move me?
# ''Expresses a reality'': "Does it seem 'true'—a credible account of a cultural, social, individual, or communal sense of the 'real'?"