All research is driven by something--a curiosity, an interest, a concern, a passion--
that does not have to justified in that it arises out of the life history of a person and,
particularly in education and other social service fields, from a professional life which,
in various ways frame what one is to be interested in.
Eventually, one must return to the passion that initially drove the work and organize
the final research document in such a way as to demonstrate that it does contribute
something to an aspect or other of the field. In other words, one must revisit the "question"
that the research was intended to answer.
Depending on the general framing of the ethnography, the answer to the Question can take various
forms.
- If one frames one's methodology in the terms of "grounded theory," one would answer with
a set of (grounded) hypotheses that would arguably be better starting for future
experimental research
- If one frames one's methodology in the terms of analytic descriptions and models,
the answer would be the description itself as organized, and thus modeled, in the
writing of the body of the document. This can take many forms depending on
one's understanding of the epistemological standing of the question. For
example, one might present the relevance of the document in various ways.
- Like Paul Willis in Learning to labor, one might argue
that one is exploring general
processes of behavior in classrooms pointing at various matters or
ways of interpreting behavior that were shortchandged in other current
accounts:
- the importance of thinking about "failing students" as possibly
"resisting" the school
- the implications for learning theories (and thus the
psychologies of adolescence) of learners' specific and
conscious resistance.
- implications for diagnosing the "causes" of failure
(psychometric testing, etc.)
- Like Nancy Sheper-Hughes in "(M)Other love," one might write to shock
the conscience about initially "odd" behavior that is then
shown to make sense locally. This is the fundamental anthropological
tack with major implications for large theories (in this case of
the "natural" character of the mother/child bond) and with paradoxical
implications for public policy.
- In all cases, the case should be made consistently throughout the document, more lightly
in the body of the text, not too heavily perhaps in the introduction, and certainly in the conclusion
when one is expected to be bold in suggesting possibilities for further research, for
the evolution of theory in one's field or more broadly, and for policy.
On publication as entry into various publics