Hitchings, R;
Latham, A;
(2021)
Qualitative methods III: On different ways of describing our work.
Progress in Human Geography
, 45
(2)
pp. 394-403.
10.1177/0309132520901753.
Preview |
Text
Latham_0309132520901753.pdf - Published Version Download (204kB) | Preview |
Abstract
In two previous reviews, we examined how human geographers currently report on projects involving their preferred qualitative methods – interviews and ethnographic observation. This final review steps back from specific techniques to evaluate some of the broader presentational conventions that typify this work. What can be inferred from where these geographers discuss data collection in their papers? Why do they develop new methods and what do they say about fieldwork failures? How often do they reflect on the provisional status of their findings? And what are the implications of how they define their purpose in working with qualitative material?
Type: | Article |
---|---|
Title: | Qualitative methods III: On different ways of describing our work |
Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
DOI: | 10.1177/0309132520901753 |
Publisher version: | https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132520901753 |
Language: | English |
Additional information: | This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages |
Keywords: | argumentation, authority, failure, innovation, purpose, qualitative methods, theory |
UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH > Faculty of S&HS UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH > Faculty of S&HS > Dept of Geography |
URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10091804 |
Archive Staff Only
View Item |