This is a qualitative study examining the factors that affect the validity of ethnographic researches. The authors used a case-study method to review the approaches used in ethnographic studies. The research findings are valid because the authors used actual case studies to assess the effectiveness or weaknesses of ethnography in sociological studies. Thus, the authors’ conclusions are reliable because they are drawn from analyses based on empirical data. Some of the causal claims the authors make is the observation that having preconceptions about the subjects of the study often leads to biased and subjective conclusions, which might not accurately reflect the truth about the issue being researched. Similarly, being too objective and close to the subjects may make the researcher to “go native” and accept outside perspectives uncritically.
Regarding the author’s conclusions, I think that they clearly capture the challenges of ethnographic studies, especially in terms of the need to overcome subjective attitudes and immerse oneself in the culture of the group being studied. In addition, the authors offer an insightful message in arguing that the findings of ethnographic studies not only challenges and extends existing understandings, but also ought to endure over time due to their authenticity.
The key question the authors seek to answer is the factors that influence the validity of ethnographic studies and how to improve it. Their central thesis is that the validity of ethnography is determined by the time the researcher spends with the subjects, objective observation and active participation in the target group’s activities, and a thorough analysis of data.
The authors arguments contributes to the understanding of ethnography by pointing out the factors that influence research findings such as the perspectives adopted by the researcher. The reading’s strength is that it draws from various studies and first-hand information (studies carried out by the authors) to support the authors’ claims and arguments. However, it lacks absolute objectivity as it relies on the authors’ interpretation of the findings by other researchers, which may not reflect the true picture of the conditions under which the studies were carried out.