IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/comdev/v54y2023i6p797-813.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the ground, but not in the field? The (mis)use and portrayal of ethnography in community development literature

Author

Listed:
  • Emma Falkenstein
  • Craig A. Talmage
  • Christopher M. Annear

Abstract

Ethnography is valuable, but the expressions of ethnography in the community development literature are inadequate. This methodological insufficiency showcases a failure by community development professionals to fully understand the communities they serve and jeopardizes the reputation of the community development field. We call for the development of a standard for the community development field that substantiates ethnographic methodology and production in research and practice. Ethnography requires empirical fieldwork consisting of multiple, well-integrated methods. Moreover, ethnographers should strive for polyvocal field-based study with community members who are both the subjects and co-producers of the resultant written ethnography. We reach and support our findings with an exhaustive review of 112 articles in leading community development journals that claim to utilize ethnographic study. Additionally, we provide a history of ethnography in community development, articulate ethnography in process and application, and suggest how to improve the reporting and practice of ethnography.

Suggested Citation

  • Emma Falkenstein & Craig A. Talmage & Christopher M. Annear, 2023. "On the ground, but not in the field? The (mis)use and portrayal of ethnography in community development literature," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(6), pages 797-813, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:comdev:v:54:y:2023:i:6:p:797-813
    DOI: 10.1080/15575330.2022.2034024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/15575330.2022.2034024
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/15575330.2022.2034024?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:comdev:v:54:y:2023:i:6:p:797-813. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCOD20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.