For ethnography

This article seeks to promote what might be called a traditional form of ethnography. It recognises that all traditions change, but puts forward a view that, for an activity or product to be regarded as ethnographic, there is a need for some recognisable continuity with what has been regarded as ethnography in the last century. This article thus presents a defence of rigour and systematic research within ethnography. It is not a response to the other papers within this special issue, but it does put forward a case for a particular form of ethnographic research and representation that follows rigorous research methods and presents the findings of that research in a systematic and clear way. The first section of the article discusses the nature of ethnography that I wish to promote. The second provides a critique of some specific cases where the authors wish to apply the term ethnography, focussing on autoethnography and performance ethnography. The conclusion suggests ways in which these newer forms of qualitative inquiry might be made more rigorous and thus warrant the name ethnography as it has been traditionally understood.