CRITICALLY ANALYZE THE COMPARATIVE AND ETHNOGRAPHIC

METHODS OF SOCIOLOGICAL ENQUIRY

Social science research can be defined as the act of re-examining the social
world with the goal of better understanding or explaining why or how people
behave. Research in social sciences seeks to add to the existing knowledge about
the reality. However, social research is not as simple as it seems and the doing of
social research includes methods and tools and techniques of research, which helps
us to draw causal relationships, inter-relationship between variables and testing of
hypothesis. We would look deeper into the comparative and ethnographic methods
of sociological enquiry.
Comparative sociology may be defined as that field which is concerned with
the systematic and explicit comparison of social phenomena in two or more
societies. Comparison is a fundamental tool for analysis. It shapes our power of
description, and plays a central role in concept-formation by bringing into focus
similarities and contrasts among cases.
Comparison can be undertaken in numerous ways but we may note the three
types of approach distinguished by Durkheim (1964). We could consider a single
society at a given time and analyse the broad variations in particular modes of
action or relationships occurring in that society. We could consider several
societies of a generally similar nature which differ in certain modes of action or
relationships; more precisely, we could here compare either different and perhaps
contemporaneous societies, or the same society at different periods, if these exhibit
some limited cultural change. We could compare several, perhaps numerous,
societies of widely different nature yet sharing some identical feature; or different
periods, showing radical change, in the life of the same society.
The success of the comparative method will depend on the comparison of
things that can be compared. One is that the units compared are roughly of the
same order of magnitude; for instance, it would not be particularly fruitful to
compare the handshake in England with the family system in China. Second, in
order for comparison to be effective things must be of the same class or order in
some way. Thus to compare, marriage in America with tea drinking in China
would probably be fruitless.
For most sociologists the very nature of sociological research is considered
comparative, and thinking in comparative terms is inherent in sociology. All
sociological method is intrinsically comparative in the sense that it either involves
explicit and direct comparison of time and/or space differentials or involves
concepts that were developed through such comparisons. Therefore, sociology is
implicitly comparative.
It is no wonder that Emile Durkheim wrote ‘comparative sociology is not a
particular branch of sociology; it is sociology itself, in so far as it ceases to be
purely descriptive and aspires to account for facts.Weber on the other hand,
thought that comparison did not consist in drawing parallels Comparative Method
and analogies but in exploring the trajectories of social institutions in their
irreducible differences and singularities.Weber’s epistemological analysis resolve
complexity and generality by showing that they serve complementary purpose in
ideal types. Durkheim on the other hand reconciles in an ontological argument
about social species that far surpasses simple assertions about the uniformity and
diversity of social organisations.
For researchers adopting a normative perspective, comparisons have served
as a tool for developing classifications of social phenomena and for establishing
whether shared phenomena can be explained by the same causes. For many
sociologists, comparisons have provided an analytical framework for examining
(and explaining) social and cultural differences and specificity.
Ethnomethodology is an approach that takes seriously the implications of
the routine observation of social activities. Ethnography as a research method
offers the researcher an opportunity to collect information from the field in a great
deal of varieties. Ethnography encompasses the idea that information is embedded
in the socio-cultural activities of the society and understanding the meaning of
information is possible only when the researcher is immersed in the field.
Therefore, ethnographer has to be aware of the three key principles of ethnography
viz. naturalism, understanding and discovery and then find the appropriate ways of
collecting the information.
People’s actions and accounts are studied in everyday contexts, rather than
under conditions created by the researcher – such as in experimental setups or in
highly structured interview situations. In other words, research takes place ‘in the
field’. Data are gathered from a range of sources, including documentary evidence
of various kinds, but participant observation and/or relatively informal
conversations are usually the main ones. Data collection is, for the most part,
relatively ‘unstructured’, in two senses. First, it does not involve following through
a fixed and detailed research design specified at the start. Second, the categories
that are used for interpreting what people say or do are not built into the data
collection process through the use of observation schedules or questionnaires.
Instead, they are generated out of the process of data analysis. The focus is usually
on a few cases, generally fairly small-scale, perhaps a single setting or group of
people. This is to facilitate in-depth study. The analysis of data involves
interpretation of the meanings, functions, and consequences of human actions and
institutional practices, and how these are implicated in local, and perhaps also
wider, contexts. What are produced, for the most part, are verbal descriptions,
explanations, and theories; quantification and statistical analysis play a subordinate
role at most.
Ethnography has been widely used in social science research and it is a
powerful research in order to understand the phenomenon in-depth

and it gives you the comprehensive picture of the subject under study.
Ethnography deconstructs the reality and unpacks everything transparently.
Through the rigorous process of interacting with the participants on the ground and
bringing the emic perspectives things are brought into the table in more visible
form.
However, there are certain criticism against ethnography as an inquiry
process. Ethnographic research is something that is below the standard of science
because it does not follow the ‘scientific’ parameters of research. The critics are of
the opinion that ethnography is a subjective collection of the information from the
field and the findings are simply the subjective interpretations of the researcher as
everything communicated to the reader is collected by the researcher based his/her
subject observations in the field.
The postmodern critique presents four chief problems for ethnography, attacking
its representation of the field, the value it places on ‘thick description’, the
reliability and validity of its data and the construction of the ethnographic text.
Ethnographic research just compiles the massive information and the discussion
does not lead to any concluding statement. The data is so huge that there are issues
with their verification and authentication. Ethnographic research is very long and
time consuming. Since the sample size is too small and the field of study is chosen
purposively, it is neither possible to generalize nor to replicate.
Ethnographic research has been in use extensively in social science and
educational research and its importance has been well recognized by the academic
community. Ethnographic research, if done properly, is enlightening for the
researcher and there is a lot of things ethnographer learns through the engagement.