Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human Relations
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Weeks, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

What Do Ethnographers Believe?

A Reply to Jones

John R. Weeks

INSEAD, in Fontainebleau, France, john.weeks{at}insead.fr

Jones overstates his case when he labels ethnographic belief ascription as `inherently risky' and `fraught with fundamental epistemological difficulties'. The logical problem he identifies is this: ethnographic techniques of observation and interrogation cannot determine with certainty whether particular beliefs actually exist in the form of mental objects of psychological structures in the minds of subjects. But there is no evidence that ethnographers believe themselves to be describing mental objects or psychological structures in their work. The problems of accurately ascribing beliefs to others are real enough, but they are practical, not logical, and ethnography remains the best method for overcoming them.

Key Words: ascription belief • epistemology • ethnography • sociology

Human Relations, Vol. 53, No. 1, 153-171 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/0018726700531007
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Human RelationsHome page
T. E. Jones
Ethnography and Sister Sciences: Why Refuse Assistance? A Reply to Weeks
Human Relations, March 1, 2000; 53(3): 299 - 310.
[Abstract] [PDF]