IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v49y2019i02p763-784_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fieldwork in Political Theory: Five Arguments for an Ethnographic Sensibility

Author

Listed:
  • Herzog, Lisa
  • Zacka, Bernardo

Abstract

This article makes a positive case for an ethnographic sensibility in political theory. Drawing on published ethnographies and original fieldwork, it argues that an ethnographic sensibility can contribute to normative reflection in five distinct ways. It can help uncover the nature of situated normative demands (epistemic argument); diagnose obstacles encountered when responding to these demands (diagnostic argument); evaluate practices and institutions against a given set of values (evaluative argument); probe, question and refine our understanding of values (valuational argument); and uncover underlying social ontologies (ontological argument). The contribution of ethnography to normative theory is distinguished from that of other forms of empirical research, and the dangers of perspectival absorption, bias and particularism are addressed.

Suggested Citation

  • Herzog, Lisa & Zacka, Bernardo, 2019. "Fieldwork in Political Theory: Five Arguments for an Ethnographic Sensibility," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 763-784, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:49:y:2019:i:02:p:763-784_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123416000703/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:cup:bjposi:v:49:y:2019:i:02:p:763-784_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    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.