Social

Research
Methods
Alan Bryman
third edition
OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS
OXFORD
UNIVBRSITY PIlIlSS
Great Clarendon Street, Orlord oX2 60P
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford .
It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Viemarn
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford UniversityPress Inc., New York
AJan Bryman 2008
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First edition 200 1
Second edition 2004
Thisedition 2008
All rights reserved. No parr of this publication may bereproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Bryman, Alan.
Social research methods / Alan Bryman.- 3rd ed,
p.em.
Text accompanied by a companion web site .
ISBN-13: 978-0-19-920295-9
1. Social sciences-Research. 2. Social sciences-Methodology. I. Title .
H62.B7872008
300.72-dc22
2008003361
Typeset by Graphicraft Limited, Hong Kong
Printed in Italy
on acid-free paper by
LE.G.O. S.p.A. . Lavis (TN)
ISBN978-0-19-920295-9
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
JF
Writing up social
research
Chapteroutline
Introduction 661
Writing up your research 662
Start early 662
Bepersuasive 662
Get feedback 663
Avoid sexist, racist, and disablist language 663
Structure your writing 663
Writing up quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research 668
Writingup quantitative research 669
Writing up qualitativeresearch 672
Writing up mixedmethods research 675
Postmodernism and its implications for writing 679
Writfng ethnography 684
Experiential authority 685
Typical forms 685
The native's point of view 685
Interpretat iveomnipotence 686
Checklist 686
Key points 688
Questions for review 688
e

-
.,
Writing up social research 661
Cbapter guide
It is easy to forget that one of the main stages in any research project. regardless of its size, is that it has
to be written up. Not only is this how you will convey your findings. but being aware of the significance
of writing is crucial. because your audience must be persuaded about the credibility and importance of
your research. This chapter presents some of the characteristics of the writing-up of social research.
The chapter explores:
why writing. and especially good writ ing. is important to social research;
using examples. how quantitative and qualitative research are composed;
the influence and implications of postmodernism for writing;
key issues raised by discussions about the writing of ethnography. an area in which discussions about
writing have been especially prominent.
Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to examine some of the strat-
egies that are employed in writing up social research. Initi-
ally, we will explore the question of whether quantitative
and qualitative research reveal divergent approaches, As
we willsee, the similarities are frequently more striking and
apparent than the differences. However, the main point
of this chapter is to extract some principles of good prac-
tice that can be developed and incorporated into your
own writing. This is an important issue, since many peo-
pIefind writing up research more difficult than carrying it
out. On the other hand, many people treat the writing-up
stage as relatively unproblematic. But no matter howwell
research is conducted, others (that is, your readers) have
to beconvinced about the credibility of the knowledge
claims you are making. Good writing is therefore very
much to do with developing your style so that it is persua-
siveand convincing. Flat, lifeless , uncertain writing does
not have the power to persuade and convince. In explor-
ing these issues, I will touch on rhetorical strategies in the
writing of social research (see Thinking deeply 27.2).
As Atkinson (1990; 2) has observed in relation to social
research, 'the conventions of text and rhetoric are among
the ways in which reality is constructed'. This chapter
will review some of the ways in which social research is
written up in a way that will provide some basic ideas
about structuring your own written work if you have to
produce something like a dissertation.
Q
Key concept 27.1
What is rhetoric?
The study of rhetoric isfundamentally concerned with the ways in which attempts to convince or persuade
an audience are formulated. We often encounter the term in a negative context, such as 'mere rhetoric' or the
opposition of 'rhetoric and reality'. However, rhetoric is an essential ingredient ofwriting, because when we
write our aimis to convince others about the credibility of our knowledge claims.To suggest thaI rhetoric
should somehow be suppressed makes littlesense. since it is in fact a basic feature of writing. The examination
of rhetorical strategies in written texts based on social research is concerned withthe identificationof the
techniques in those texts that are designed to convince and persuade.
662 Writing up social research.

Writing up your research

Itis easy to neglect the writing stage of your work because
of the difficulties that you often encounter in getting your
research under way. But-obvious though this point is
-your dissertation has to be written. Your findings
must be conveyed to an audience, something that all of
us who carry out research have to face. The first bit of
advice is . . .
Start early
It is easy to take the view that the writing-up of your
research findings is something that you can think about
after you have collected and analysed your data. There is,
of course, a grain of truth in this view, in that you could
hardly write up your findings until you know what they
are, which is something that you can know onlyonce you
have gathered and analysed your data. However, there
are good reasons for beginning writing early on, since you
might want to start thinking about such issues as how best
to present and justify the research questions that are driv_
ing your research or how to structure the theoretical and
research literature that will have been used to frame Your
research questions. Students often tend to underestimate
the time that it will take to write up their research, soit is
a good idea to allow plenty of time for this , espedally if
you are expecting your supervisor to read and Comment
on an earlydraft, since you will need to allow him or her a
reasonable amount of time for this. Afurther reason Why
it is advisable to begin writing earlier rather than later is
an entirely practical one: many people find it difficult to
get started and employ (probably unwittingly) procrasti-
nation strategies to put off the inevitable. This tendency
can result in the writing being left until the last minute
and consequentlyrushed. Writing under this kind of pres-
sure is not ideal. How you represent your findings and
conclusions is a crucial stage in the research process. If
you do not provide a convincing account of your research,
you will not do justice to it.
f(@\,
f : i ~ 1 \
Student experience
Writing up is difficult
Several of the students mentioned that they found writing up difficult. Gareth Matthews comments that
he 'found this stage the most difficult'. Isabella Robbins admits that writing the chapters presenting her
findings was 'the most difficult task of the Ph.D. process'. Having enough time for writing up is a common
refrain in their questionnaires. Sarah Hanson's advice is:
w
The only problem with a writing project of this size is time. As it isalways against you,start early. and be
organized, do one thing at a time. Work chronologically. Lecturers and markers liketo see that you have
gone on a journey of exploration into an interesting world and at the end have come out with something
worthwhile that has changed your thinking and will hopefullychallenge theirs.
To readmoreabout Gareth's, Isabella's, and Sarah's research experiences. go to the Online Resource
Centre that accompanies thisbook at http://www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm3el.
Be persuasive
This point is crucial. Writing up your research is not sim-
ply a matter of reporting your findings and drawing some
conclusions. Writing up your research will contain many
other features, such as referring to the literature on which
you drew, explaining howyou did your research, and out-
lining how you conducted your analysis. But above all,
yoUmust be persuasive. This means that you must con-
vince your readers of the credibility of your conclusions.
SimPly saying 'this is what I found; isn't it interesting' is
not enough. You must persuade your readers that your
findings and conclusion are significant and that they are
plausible.
Get feedback
Tryto get as much feedback on your writing as possible
and respond positively to the points anyone makes about
what they read. Your supervisor is likely to be the main
source offeedback, but institutions vary in what supervi-
sors are allowed to comment on . Provide your supervisor
with drafts of your work to the fullest extent that regula-
tions will allow. Give himor her plenty of time to provide
feedback. There will be others like you who will want
Writing up social research 663
your supervisor to conunent on their work, and, if he or
she feels rushed, the comments may be less helpful. Also,
you ~ o u l ask others on the same degree programme to
read your drafts and comment on them. They may ask
you to do the same. Their comments may be very useful, .
but, by and large, your supervisor's comments are the
main ones you should seek out.
Avoid sexist, racist, and disablist
language
Remember that your writing should be free of sexist,
racist, and disablist language. The British Sociological
Association provides very good general and specific
advice about this issue, which can be found at http://
www.britsoc.co.ukJequality/ (accessed on 16 July
2007).
:t,
.',:.. .. .",
i
i
# Co'
. . ~ ~ ~
Tips and skills
Non-sexist writing
One of the biggest problems (but by no means the only one) when trying to write in a non-sexist way is
avoiding complex his/her formulations. The easiest way of dealing with this is to write in the plural in such
circumstances. Consider, for example : 'I wanted to give each respondent the opportunity to complete the
questionnaire in his or her own time and in a location that was convenient for him or her .' This is a rather
tortuous sentence and, although grammatically correct,it could be phrased more helpfUlly as: ' l wanted to give
respondents the opportunity to complete their questionnaires in their own time and in a location that was
convenient for them .
Structure your writing
It may be that you have to write a dissertation of around
10,000-15,000 words for your degree. How might it be
Structured? The following is typical of the Structure of a
dissertation.
Title page
You should examine your institution's rules about what
should be entered here.
Acknowledgements
You might want to acknowledge the help of various
people, such as gatekeepers who gave you access to an
organization, people who have read your drafts and
provided you with feedback, or your supervisor for his or
her advice.
list of contents
Your institution may have recommendations or prescrip-
tions about the form this should take,
An abstract
A brief summary of your dissertation. Not ail institu-
tions require this component, so check on whether it is
required. Journal articles usually have abstracts, so you
can draw on these for guidance on how to approach
this task.
664 Writing up social research
Introduction
The following are some points to consider when writing
an introduction.
You should explain what you are writing about and
why it is important. Saying simply that it interests
you because of a long-standing personal interest is
not enough.
You might indicate in general terms the theoretical
approach or perspective you will be using and why.
You should also at this point outline your research
questions. In the case of dissertations based on quali-
tative research, it is likely that your research ques-
tions will be rather more open-ended than is the case
with quantitative research . But do try to identify some
research questions. A totally open-ended research
focusis riskyand can lead to the collection of too much
data, and, when it comes to writing up, it can result in
a lackof focus.
The opening sentence or sentences are often the most
difficult of all. Becker (1986) advises strongly against
opening sentences that he describes as 'vacuous' and
'evasive'. He gives the example of 'This study deals
with the problem of careers', and adds that this kind
of sentence employs 'a typically evasive manceuvre,
pointing to something without saying anything, or
anything much, about it. What about careers?' (Becker
1986: 51). He suggests that such evasiveness often
occurs because of concerns about givingawaytheplat.
111 fact, he argues, it is much better to give readers a
quick and clear indication of what isgoing to bemeted
out to them and where it isgoing.
literature review
See Chapter 4 for more detailed advice on how to go
about writing this chapter of your dissertation.
Research methods
The term 'research methods' is meant here as a kind
of catch-all for several issues that need to be outlined:
your research design; your sampling approach; how
access was achieved if relevant; the procedures youUsed
(such as, if you sent out a postal questionnaire, did
you followup non-respondents); the nature of yourques.
tionnaire, interview schedule, participant observation
role, observation schedule, coding frame, or whatever
(these will usually appear in an appendix, but youshould
comment on such things as your style of questioning Or
observation and why you asked the thingsyoudid); prob-
lems of non-response; note taking; issues of ongoing
access and cooperation; coding matters; and how you
proceeded with your analysis. When discussingeachof
these issues, you should describe and defend the choices
that you made, such as why you used a postal question-
naire rather than a structured interview approach, or
why you focused upon that particular population for
sampling purposes.

Tips and skills
The importance of an argument
Inmyexperience, one of the thingsthat studentsfind most difficult about writing up theirresearch isthe
formulationof an argument. Thewriting-upof research shouldbe organized aroundan argument that links
allaspectsof the researchprocessfrom problem formulation, through literaturereviewand the presentation
of researchmethods, to the discussion andconclusion. Toooften,students makea series of pointswithout
asking what the contribution ofthose pointsisto the overall argumentthat theyare trying to present. Consider
what yourclaim to knowledge isand tryto organize yourwriting to support and enhanceit.Thatwill be
yourargument.Sometimes it isuseful to thinkin termsof seeking to tella storyabout yourresearch and your
findings. Try to avoid tangentsand irrelevant material that maymean that yourreaderswill losethe thread
of yourargument. Ifyouare not ableto supply a dear argument, youare very vulnerable to the 'so what?'
Question. Ask yourself: 'What isthe keypointor message that Iwant myreaders to takeawaywith themwhen
they havefinishedreadingmywork?' Ifyoucannotanswerthat simple Question satisfactorily (andit may be
worthtrying it out on others), almostcertainly youdo not haveanargument. Theargument isa threadthat
runsthrough yourdissertation (see Figure 27.1 foran illustration of this).
::
~ ;
The role of an argument in a dissertatlon
lntroductlon A
Literature.revi ew
R
G
Research methods
u
Results .
M
Discussion
E
N
Conclusion .
T
Writing up socia l research 665
Results
In this chapter you present the bulk of your findings. If
you intend to have a separate Discussion chapter, it is
likelythat the results will be presented with little com-
mentary in terms of the literature or the implications of
your findings. If there will be no Discussion chapter, you
will need to provide some reflections on the significance
of your findings for your research questions and for the
literature. Bear these points in mind.
Whichever approach you take, remember not to
include all your results. You should present and dis-
cuss only those findings that relate to your research
questions. This requirement may mean a rather
painful process of leaving out many findings, but it
is necessary, so that the thread of your argument is
not lost (see Tips and skills 'The importance of an
argument' for more on the significance of having a
good argument).
Your writing should point to particularly salient as-
peers of the tables, graphs, or other forms of analysis
you present. Do not just summarize what a table
shows; you should direct the reader to the component
or components of it that are especially striking from
the point of viewof your research questions. Try to ask
yourself what story you want the table to convey and
try to relay that story to your readers.
Another sin to be avoided is simply presenting a
graph or table or a section of the transcript of a semi-
structured interview or focus group session without
any comment whatsoever, because the reader is left
wondering why you think the finding is important.
When reponing quantitative findings, it is quite a
good idea to vary wherever possible the method of
presenting results-for example, provide a mixture of
diagrams and tables. However, you must remember
the lessons of Chapter 14 concerning the methods
of analysis that are appropriate to different types of
variable.
A particular problem that can arise with qualitative
research is that students find it difficult to leave out
large pans of their data. As one experienced qualita-
tive researcher has put it: 'The major problem we face
in qualitative inquiry is not to get data, but to get rid of
it!' (Wolcott 1990a: 18). He goes on to say that the
'critical task in qualitative research is not to accumu-
late all the data you can, but to "can" [i.e, get rid of]
most of the data you accumulate' (Wolcott 1990a : 35) .
You simply have to recognize that much of the rich
data you accumulate will have to be jettisoned. If you
do not do this, any sense of an argument in your work
is likely to be lost. There is also the risk that your
account of your findings will appear too descriptive
and lack an analytical edge. This iswhy it is important
to use research questions as a focus and to orient the
presentation of your findings to them. It is also import-
ant to keep in mind the theoretical ideas and the liter-
ature that have framed your work. The theory and
literature that have influenced your thinking will also
have shaped your research questions.
...
666 Writing up social research


w
"
,.
. ' .. I

'1,1 .
L .
w
Student experience
Do not try to write up everything
You will not be able to write up everything that you havefound. Sophie Masonrecognizedthis.She writes:
The great quantity of datameant that I hadto usemy own judgementas to what datawas themostrelevant
to the aimsof the research. I also had to be careful to usevisual aids whenusingcomplicatedstatistics to
emphasize the importance of the results.
Rebecca Barneswrites:
Because somany important and interestingissues haveemergedin theanalysis of my data. I have hadtobe
selective; I havechosento do justiceto asmallernumber of themes, rather than resortingto superficial
coverage of alarger number of themes.
To read more about Sophie 's ond Rebecca's research experiences, go to the Online Resource Centrethat
accompanies this book at http://www.ox(ordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm3e/.
Student experience
The importance of research questions, theory,
and the literature in writing up findings
Several studentsmentioned how important it wasfor them to keepin mind their researchquestions and
the theory and literature that were driving their research while writing up. For one thing, they help the
student to decide which findings to include or to emphasize when writing up. Rebecca Barneswrites:
I choseto havethree chaptersof my thesisthat reported my findings. andI chose the themesthat I would
indude in eachof thesechapters. These werenot. however, set in stone, andhavechangedinanumberof
respects from when I first startedto plan the writing-up. Each of these chapters addresses oneof mymain
research questionsor aims.
Erin Sanders writes: ' Fi rst I wrote down the main points and ideasI wanted to get across-and how my
findings related to [my) researchQuestion.' Hannah Creane'swriting-up of her findings wasgeared to her
research Questions.
I groupedtogether questionsand responses that concemedsimilaraspects within the childhooddebateand
formed threemain chapters: What makes achild achild?: Childhoodpasttimes:andThe childtoday. Within
thesechapters I interwove themesthat emergedfromthe dataandseemed tobe present in most responses.
For Gareth Matthews the theoretical debatesabout the labour process werecrucial: 'This hasallowedme
to frame my thesistheoretically , and to lay the foundations for a discussion of my empirical findings.'
To read more about Rebecca's, Erin'5, Hannah '5, and Gareth's research experiences. go to the Online
Resource Centre that accompanies this book at htlp:llwww.oxfordtextbooks.co.uklorclbrymansrm3el
Uyou are writing a thesis--forexample, for an M.PhiJ.
or Ph.D. degree-it is likely that you will have more
than one and possibly several chapters in which you
present your results. Cryer (1996) recommends show-
ing at the beginning of each chapter the particular
issues that are being examined in the chapter. You
should indicate which research question or questions
are being addressed in the chapter and provide some
signposts about what will be included in the chapter.
In the conclusion of the chapter, you should make
dear what your results have shown and draw out any
links that might be made with the next results chapter.
Discussion
In the Discussion, you reflect on the implications of your
findings for the research questions that have driven your
research. In other words, how do your results illuminate
your research questions? If you have specified hypo-
theses, the discussion will revolve around whether the
hypotheses have been confirmed or not, and, if not, you
might speculate about some possible reasons for and the
implications of their refutation.
Conclusion
The main points here are as follows.
AConclusion is not the same as a summary. However,
it is frequently useful to bring out in the opening para-
graph of the Conclusion your argument thus far. This
will mean relating your findings and your discussion
of them to your research questions. Thus, your brief
summary should be a means of hammering home to
your readers the significance of what you have done.
You should make clear the implications of your find-
ings for your research questions.
Writing up social research 667
You might suggest some ways in which your findings
have implications for theories relating to your area of
interest.
You might draw attention to any limitations of your
research with the benefit of hindsight, but it is prob-
ably best not to overdo this element and provide exam-
iners with too much ammunition that might be used
against youl
It is often valuable to propose areas of further research
that are suggested by your findings.
Two things to avoid are engaging in speculations that
take you too far away from your data, or that cannot be
substantiated by the data, and introducing issues or
ideas that have not previously been brought up.
Appendices
In your appendices you might want to include such things
as your questionnaire, coding frame, or observation
schedule, letters sent to sample members, and letters sent
to and received from gatekeepers where the cooperation
of an organization was required.
References
Include here all references cited in the text. For the format
of the References section you should follow whichever
one is prescribed byyour department. Nowadays, the for-
mat is usually a variation of me Harvard method, such as
the one employed for this book.
Finally
Remember to fulfil any obligations you entered into, such
as supplying a copy of your dissertation, if, for example,
your access to an organization was predicated on provid-
ing one, and maintaining the confidentiality of informa-
tion supplied and the anonymity of your informants and
other research participants.
~ ~ i
Student experience
Structure of the dissertation or thesis
Some of the students wrote up their work with a similar structure to the one that has been outlined in this
section. Sophie Mason writes:
The research project was written in variousstages and split into several differentsections; these were as
follows: Introductionand Aims, LiteratureReview, Research Designand Data Gathering,Data Analysis and
Research Findings. Condusions and Recommendations. Appendixand Bibliography.
668 Writing up social research
ErinSanders writes:
~
Iwrote it inorder, introduction, literature review, research design, findings, discussion,and conciusion,l t o o ~ ;
each section as if it were an essay in and of itself, and attempted to break it down into chunks soas nottoget
lost in a long document.
~
~
~ ,/
,,'

. ~
..
To read more about Sophie's and Erin'sresearch experiences, go to the Online Resource Centrethat
accompanies this book at http://www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm3el.
Tips andskills
Proof reading your dissertation
Before SUbmitting your dissertation, make sure that it isspell-checked and check it for grammatical and
punctuation errors. There are many useful guides and handbooks that can be used for this purpose. It mayalso
be useful to ask someone else, such as a friend or family member, to proof read your work in case there are
errors that you have missed. Aswell as being an important presentational issue, this will affect the ease with
which your written work can be read and understood. It therefore has the potential to affect the qualityofyour
dissertation significantly.
Writing upquantitative, qualitative,
and mixed methods research
In the next three sections, research-based articles that
have been published in journals are examined to detect
some helpful features. One is based on quantitative re-
search, one on qualitative research, and another on mixed
methods research. The presentation of the quantitative
and the qualitative research articles raises the question of
whether practitioners of the two research strategies em-
ploydifferent writing approaches. It issometimes suggested
that they do, though, when I compared two articles based
on research in the sociology of work, I found that the dif-
ferences were less pronounced than I had anticipated on
the basis of reading the literature on the topic (Bryman
1998). One difference that I have noticed is that, injournals,
quantitative researchers often give more detailed accounts
of their research design, research methods, and approaches
to analysis than qualitative researchers. This is surprising,
because, in books reporting their research, qualitative re-
searchers provide detailed accounts of these areas. Indeed,
the chapters in Part Three of this book rely heavily on
these accounts. Wolcott (1990a: 27) has also noticed this
tendency: 'Our [qualitative researchers'] failure to render
full and complete disclosure about our data-gathering
procedures give our methodologicallyoriented colleagues
fits. And rightly so, especially for those among them will-
ing to accept our contributions if we would only provide
more careful data about our data.' Being informed that
a study was based on a year's participant observation or
a number of semi-structured interviews is not enough
to gain an acceptance of the claims to credibility that a
writer might be wishing to convey.
However, this point aside, in the discussion that Iol-
lows, although one article based on quantitative research
and one based on qualitative research will be examined,
we should not be too surprised if they tum out to be more
similar than might have been expected. In other words,
. although we might have expected clear differences
between the two in terms of their approaches to writing,
the similarities are more noticeable than the differences.
In addition to looking at examples of writing in quanti-
tative and qualitative research, I will examine the matter
of how mixed methods research can be written up and
explore some guidelines that are being proffered by
practitioners. The approach to dealing with the mixed
methods research article is slightly different from the
other twOin that I will begin with some general sugges-
tions for writing up mixed methods research as this is an
area that has not been given a great deal of attention.
.Writing up quantitative research
Toillustrate some of the characteristics of the way quanti-
tative research is written up for academic journals, I will
take the article by Kelley and De Graaf (1997) that was
referred to on several occasions in Chapters 1,2,6, and 13
(see especially Research in focus 1.4 and 6.3) . I am not
suggesting that this article is somehow exemplary or
representative, but rather that it exhibits some features
that are often regarded as desirable qualities in terms
of presentation and structure. The article is based on a
secondary analysis of survey data on religion in fifteen
nations and was accepted for publication in one of the
most prestigious journals in sociology-the American
Sociological Review, which is the official journal of the
American Sociological Association. The vast majority of
published articles in academic journals entail the blind
refereeing of articles submitted. This means that an arti -
cle will be read by two or three peers, who comment on
the anicle and give the editors ajudgement about its mer-
its and hence whether it is wonhy of publication. Most
articles submitted are rejected. With highly prestigious
journals, it is common for in excess of 90 per cent of arti-
c1es to be rejected. It is unusual for an article to be
accepted on its first submission. Usually, the referees
will suggest areas that need revising and the author (or
authors) is expected to respond to that feedback. Revised
versions of articles are usually sent back to the referees for
funher comment, and this process may result in the
author having to revise the draft yet again. It may even
result in rejection. Therefore, an article like Kelleyand De
Graafs is not just the culmination of a research process,
but is also the outcome of a feedback process. The fact
that it has been accepted for publication, when many
others have been rejected, testifies to its merits as having
met the standards of the journal. That is not to say it is
perfect, but the refereeing process is an indication that it
does possess certain crucial qualities.
Structure
The article has the following components, aside from the
abstract:
Writing up social research 669
1. introduction;
2., theory;
3. data;
4. measurement;
5. methods and models;
6. results;
7. conclusion.
Introduction
Right at the beginning of the introduction, the opening
four sentences attempt to grab our attention, to give a
clear indication of where the article's focus lies, and to
provide an indication of the probable significance of the
findings . This is what the authors write :
Religion remains a central element of modern life,
shaping people's world-views, moral standards, family
lives, and in many nations, their politics. But in many
Western nations, modernization and secularization
may be eroding Christian beliefs, with profound
consequences that have intrigued sociologists since
Durkheim. Yet this much touted secularization may
be overstated-certainly it varies widely among
nations and is absent in the United States (Benson,
Donahue, and Erickson 1989: 154-7: Felling,Peters,
and Schreuder 1991; Firebaugh and Harley 1991;
Stark and Iannaccone 1994) . We explore the degree to
which religious beliefs are passed on from generation
to generation in different nations . (Kelleyand De
Graaf 1997: 639)
This is an impressive start, because, in just over 100
words, the authors set out what the article isabout and its
significance. Let us look at what each sentence achieves .
The first sentence locates the article's research focus as
addressing an important aspect of modemsociety that
touches on many people's lives.
The second sentence notes that there isvariety among
Western nations in the importance of religion and that
the variations may have 'profound consequences'.
But this sentence does more than the first sentence:
it also suggests that this is an area that has been of
interest to sociologists . To support this point , one of
sociology's most venerated figures-Emile Durkheim-
is mentioned.
The third sentence suggests that there is a problem
with the notion of secularization, which has been a
670 Writing up social research
research focus for many sociologists of religion.
Several fairly recent articles are cited to support the
authors' contention that there is a possibility that
secularization is being exaggerated by some com-
mentators. In this sentence, the authors are moving
towards a rationale for their article that is more in
terms of sociological concerns than pointing to social
changes, which are the main concern of the two open-
ing sentences.
"
Then in the fourth sentence the authors set up their
specific contribution to this area-the exploration of
the passing-on of religious beliefs between generations.
So, by the end of four sentences, the contribution that the
article is claiming to make to our understanding of reli-
gion in modem society has been outlined and situated
within an established literature on the topic. This is quite
a powerful start to the article, because the reader knows
what the article is about and the particular case the
authors are making for their contribution to the literature
on the subject.
Theory
In this section, existing ideas and research on the topic of
religious socialization are presented. The authors point to
the impact of parents and other people on children's reli-
gious beliefs , but then assert that 'a person's religious
environment is also shaped by factors other than their
own and their parents' religious beliefs, and hence is
a potential cause of those beliefs .. .' (Kelley and De
Graaf 1997: 641). This suggestion is thenjustified, which
prompts the authors to argue that 'prominent among
these "unchosen" aspects of one's religious environment
is birthplace' (1997: 641) . Kelley and De Graaf's rumina-
tions on this issue lead them to propose the first of three
hypotheses, which is presented in Research in focus 1.4.
This hypothesis stipulates that contextual factors have
an impact on religious beliefs. This leads the authors to
suggest in two related hypotheses that, in predominantly
secular societies, family background wil1have a greater
impact on a person's religious beliefs than in predomin-
antly devout societies, because in the former parents
and other family members are more likely to seek to iso-
late children from secular influences. However, in devout
societies this insulation process is less necessary and the
influence of national factors will be greater. Thus, we end
up with very clear research questions, which have been
arrived at by reflecting on existing ideas and research in
this area.
Data
In this section, the authors outline the data theydrewOn
for their research. This exposition entails a general 0
ut-
line of the data sets. The quotation on page 299 is laken
from this commentary. The sampling procedures areOUI-
lined along with sample sizes and response rates.
Measurement
In this section, Kelley and De Graaf explain how the main
concepts in their research were measured. The COncepIS
were: religiousbelief (the questionnaire items used are in
Research in focus 6.3); parents'churchattendance; secular
and religious nations (that is, the scoring procedure for
indicating the degree co which a nation was religiousor
secular in orientation on a five-point scale); othercon.
textual characteristics of nations (for example, whelher a
fanner Communist nation or not); and individual charac.
terisncs (for example, age and gender).
Methods and models
This is a very technical section, which outlines the differ-
ent ways in which the relationships between the vari-
ables might be conceptualized and the implications of
using different mutivariate analysis approaches for the
ensuing findings .
Results
The authors provide a general description of their
findings and then cons ider whether the hypotheses are
supported. In fact, it turns out the hypotheses are sup-
ported. The significance of other contextual character-
istics of nations and individual differences are separately
explored.
Conclusion
In this final section, Kelley and De Graaf return 10 the
issues that have been driving their investigation. These
are the issues they had presented in the Introduction and
Theory sections. They begin the section with a strong
statement of their findings: 'The religious environment of
a nation has a major impact on the beliefs of its citizens:
People living in religious nations acquire, in proportion 10
the orthodoxyof their fellowcitizens, more orthodox beliefs
than those living in secular nations' (Kelley and DeGraaf
1997: 654) . They then reflect on the implications of the
confirmation of their hypotheses for our understanding of
the process of religious socialization and religious beliefs.
They also address the implications of their findings for
certain theories about religious beliefs In modem society,
whichwere outlined in their Theory section:
Our results also speak to the long-running debate
about USexceptionalism (Warner 1993): They support
the viewthat the United States is unusually religious.
. . . Our results do not support Stark and Iannaccone's
(1994) 'supply-side' analysis of differences between
nations which. argues that nations with religious
monopolies have substantial unmet religious needs,
while churches in religiously competitive nations like
the United States do a better job of meeting diverse
religious needs. (Kelley and De Graaf 1997: 655)
. - - ~ - - . - _ . . . .. . ' , . , ~ -r,- "
The final paragraph spells out some inferences about
the ways in which social changes have an impact on levels
of religious belief in a nation. The authors suggest that
factors such as modernization arid the growth of educa -
don depress levels of religious belief and that their impact
tends to result in a precipitous rather than a gradual fall in
levelsof religiosity. In their final three sentences, they go
on to write about societies undergoing such change:
The offspring of devout families mostly remain
devout, but the offspring of more secular families
now strongly tend to be secular. Aself-reinforcing
spiral of secularization then sets in, shifting the
nation's average religiosity ever further away from
orthodoxy. So after generations of stability, religious
belief declines abruptly in the course of a few
generations to the modest levels seen in many
Western nations. (Kelley and De Graaf 1997: 656)
It might be argued that these reflections are somewhat
risky, because the data from which the authors derive
their findings are cross-sectional in research design terms
rather than longitudinal. They are clearly extrapolating
from their scoring of the fifteen nations in terms of levels
of modernization to the impact of social changes on
national levels of religiosity. However, these final sen-
tences make for a strong conclusion, which itself might
form a springboard for further research.
lessons
What lessons can be learned from Kelley and De Graaf's
article? To some extent, these have been alluded to in
the course of the above exposition, but they are worth
spelling out.
Writing up social research 671
There is a clear attempt to grab the reader's attention
with strong opening statements, which also act as
signposts to what the article is about.
The authors spell out dearly the rationale of their
research. This entails pointing to the continued sig-
nificance of religion in many societies and to the litera-
ture on religious beliefs and secularization.
The research questions are spelled out in a very
specific way. In fact, the authors present hypotheses
that are a highly specific form of research question.
As noted in Chapter 6, by no means all quantitative
research is driven by hypotheses, even though outlines
of the nature of quantitative research often imply that
it is. Nonetheless, Kelleyand De Graaf chose to frame
their research questions in this form.
The nature of the data, the measurement of concepts,
the sampling, the research methods employed and the
approaches to the analysis of the data are dearly and
explicitly summarized in sections 3, 4, and S.
The presentation of the findings in section 6 is oriented
very specifically to the research questions that drive
the research.
The conclusion returns to the research questions and
spells out the implications of the findings for them
and for the theories examined in section 2. This is
an important element. It is easy to forget that you
should think of the research process as closing a circle
in which you must return unambiguously to your
research questions. There is no point inserting extra-
neous findings if they do not illuminate your research
questions. Digressions of this kind can be confusing to
readers, who might be inclined to wonder about the
significance of the extraneous findings .
We also see that there is a clear sequential process
moving from the formulation of the research questions
through the exposition of the nature of the data and the
presentation of the findings to the conclusions. Each
stage is linked to and follows on from its predecessor (but
see Thinking deeply 27.1). The structure used by Kelley
and De Graaf is based on a common one employed in
the writing-up of quantitative research for academic
journals in the social sciences. Sometimes there is asepar-
ate Discussion section that appears between the Results
and the Conclusion. Another variation is that issues of
measurement and analysis appear in the same section as
the one dealing with research methods, but perhaps with
distinct subheadings.
'.
672 Writing upsocial
. . ..

Thinking deeply 27.1

An empiricist repertoire?
At this point, it isworthrecalling the discussion in Chapter 20of Gilbertand MUlkay's (1984) research on
scientists. Theauthors drewa distinction between an emairkist repertoire and a contingent repertoire. The
formerderived from 'the observation that the texts of experimentalpapers display certain recurrent stylistic
and lexical featureswhichappear to be coherentlyrelated' (Gilbert and Mulkay 1984; 55-6). We
shouldbear in mindthat the same istrue of papers writtenforsocial sciencejournals. Thesetoodisplay Certain
features that suggesta certaininevitability to the outcome of the research. In other words,the readeris given
a sense that, in following the rigorous proceduresoutlinedin the article, the researcherslogically arrived at
their conclusions. Thecontingent repertoire, withits recognition of the roleof the researcher inthe production
of findings, is far lessapparent inscientists' publishedwork. Thus, we haveto recognize the possibility that
the impression ofa seriesof linked stagesleadingto an inescapableculmination isto a largeextent a
reconstruction of eventsdesigned to persuade referees(who, of course, use the same tactics themselves)
of the credibility and importance of one's findings. This means that the conventions about writing up a
Quantitativeresearchproject. some of which are outlinedin thischapter, are in manywaysall invitation to
reconstructan investigation ina particular way. The wholeissueof the waysinwhichthe writing-up ofresearch
representsa means ofpersuadingothers ofthe credibility of one's knowledge claims has been a particular
preoccupation amongqualitative researchers(see below)and has been greatlyinnuencedbythe surge of
interest inpostmodernism. However, inThinking deeply 27.2,some of the rhetorical strategies involved in
writingup quantitative social researchare outlined. Three pointsare worth making about these strategies in
the present context. First theyare characteristic of the empiricist repertoire. Second, whilethe writingof
Qualitative research has been a particular focus in recent times(see below).some attention hasalsobeenpaid
to Quantitative research. Third, when Icompared the writing of Quanti tativeand Qualitative research articles,
Ifound theywere not as dissimilar in terms of rhetorical strategiesas issometimesproposed(Bryman 1998).
However,l didfind greater evidenceofa management metaphor (see Thinking deeply27.2), which isalso
evident inKelley and DeCraal's article; for example, 'we excludedthe deviant cases from our analysis' 0997:
646) and 'we divided the nationsintofive groups' (1997: 647).
Writing up qualitative research
Nowwe will look at an example of a journal article based
on qualitative research, Again, I am not suggesting that
the article Is exemplary or representative, but that it
exhibits some features that are often regarded as desir-
able qualities in terms of presentation and structure. The
article is one that has been referred to in several previous
chapters (especially Research in focus 2.10, 18.2, and
18.8): a study of vegetarianism by Beardsworth and Keil
(1992). The study is based on semi-structured interviews
and was published in the Sociological Review, a leading
Britishjournal.
Structure
The Structure runs as follows:
1. introduction;
2. the analysisof the social dimensions of foodlind eating;
3. studies of vegetarianism;
4. the design of the study;
5. the findings ofthe study;
6. explaining contemporary vegetarianism;
7. conclusions.
What is immediately striking about the structure is that
it is not dissimilar to Kelley and De Graaf's (1997).
Nor should this be all that surprising. After all, a srructure
that runs
Introduction -4 Literature review -4 Research design!
methods -4 Results -4 Discussion -4 Conclusions
is not obviously associated with one research strategy
rather than the other. One difference from quantitative
research articles is that the presentation of the results and
the discussion of them are frequently rather more inter-
woven in qualitative research articles. We will see this in
the case of Beardsworth and Keil's article. As with Kelley
and De Graaf's article , we will examine the writing in
tenDS of the article's structure.
Introduction
The first four sentences give us an immediate sense of
what the article is about and where its focus lies;
The purpose of this paper is to offer a contribution
to the analysis of the cultural and sociological factors
which influence patterns of food selection and food
avoidance. The spedfic focus is contemporary
vegetarianism, a complex of inter-related beliefs,
attitudes and nutritional practices which has to date
received comparatively little attention fromsocial
scientists. Vegetarians in western cultures, in most
instances, are not life-long practitioners but converts.
Theyare individuals who have subjected more
traditional foodways to critical scrutiny, and
subsequently made a deliberate decision to change
their eating habits, sometimes in a radical fashion.
(Beardsworth and Kei11992: 253)
like Kelley and De Graaf's, this is a strong introduction.
Wecan look again at what each sentence achieves.
The first sentence makes clear that the research iscon-
cerned with issues to do with the study of food.
The second sentence provides us with the specific re-
search focus-the study of vegetarianism-and makes
a claim for our attention by suggesting that this is a
topic that has been under-researched by sociologists.
Interestingly, this is almost the opposite of the claim
made by Kelleyand De Graaf in their second sentence,
in that they point to a line of sociological interest in
religion going back to Durkheim. Each is a legitimate
textual Strategy for gaining the attention of readers.
Our attention is jolted even more by an interesting
assertion that begins to draw the reader into one of the
article's primary themes-the idea of vegetarians as
converts .
The fourth sentence elaborates upon the idea of vege-
tarianism as being for most people an issue of choice
rather than a tradition into which one is born.
Writing up social research 673
Thus, after around 100 words, the reader has a clear idea
of the focus of the research and has been led to anticipate
~ there is unlikely to be a great deal of pre-existing
social research on this issue.
The analysis of the social dimensions of food
and eating
This and the next section review existing theory and
research in this area. In this section, the contributions of
various social scientists to social aspects of food and eat-
ing are discussed . The literature reviewed acts as a back-
cloth to the issue of vegetarianism. Beardsworth and Keil
(I992: 255) propose that their review of existing theory
and research suggests that 'there exists a range of theor-
etical and empirical resources which can be brought to
bear upon the issue of contemporary vegetarianism' . This
point is important, as the authors note once again at the
end of the section that vegetarianism has received little
attention from social scientists.
Studies of vegetarianism
This section examines aspects of the literature on vegetar-
ianism that has been carried outby social scientists or that
has a social scientific angle. The review includes: opinion
poll and survey data, which point to the likely percentage
of vegetarians in the British population; debates about
animal rights; sociological analysis of vegetarian ideas ;
and one study (Dwyer er al. 1974) of vegetarians in the
USAcarried out by a team of social scientists using sur-
vey research. In the final paragraph of this section, the
authors indicate the contribution of some of the literature
they have covered.
The design of the study
The first sentence of this section forges a useful linkwith
the preceding one: 'The themes outlined above appear to
warrant further investigation, preferably in a manner
which allows for a much more richly detailed exarnina-
tion of motivations and experiences than is apparent in
the study by Dwyer er 01.' (Beardsworth and Keil 1992:
260) . This opening gambit allows the authors to suggest
that the literature in this area is scant and that there are
many unanswered questions. Also, they distance them-
selves from the one sociological study of vegetarians,
which in tum leads them to set up the grounds for prefer-
ring qualitative research. The authors then outline;
who was to be studied and why;
how respondents were recruited (see Research in
focus 18.8) and the difficulties encountered;
674 Writing up social research
the semi-srrucrured interviewing approach (see
Research in focus 18.2) and the rationale for it;
the number of people interviewed and the context in
which the interviews took place;
the approach to analysing the interview transcripts,
which largely comprised the identification of themes.
The findings of the study
The chief findings are outlined under separate headings:
respondents' characteristics; types of vegetarianism; the
process of conversion; motivations; nutritional beliefs ;
social relations; and dilemmas. The presentation of the
results is carried out so that there is some discussion of
their meaning or significance in such a way as to lead onto
the next section, which provides exclusively a discussion .'
of them. For example, in the final sentence in the section '
reporting findings relating to nutritional beliefs , the
authors write:
Just as meat tended to imply strongly negative
connotations for respondents. concepts like 'fruit'
and 'vegetable' tended to elicit positive reactions,
although less frequently and in a more muted form
than might have been anticipated on the basis
of the analysis of the ideological underpinnings of
'wholefoods' consumption put forward by Atkinson
(1980,1983), or on the basis ofthe analysis of
vegetarian food symbolism advanced by Twigg
(1983: 28). (Beardsworth and Kei11992: 276)
.. . , _. , - -----:---,-;-'-" ..--.' ,-.- .1 - . - _ .. _ - _ ,.. - _ - - _. ,_ .. , ,.;
In this way, the presentation of the results is pointing for-
ward to some themes that are taken up in the following
sections and demonstrates the significance of certain
findings for some of the previously discussed literature.
Explaining contemporary vegetarianism
This section discusses the findings in the light of the
study's research questions in connection with food selec-
tion and avoidance. The results are also related to many
of the ideas encountered in the two sections dealing with
the literature. The authors develop an idea emerging
from their research, which they call 'food ambivalence'.
This concept encapsulates for the authors the anxieties
and paradoxes concerning food that can be discerned in
the interview transcripts (for example, food can be con-
strued both as necessary for strength and energy and
simultaneously as a source of illness). Vegetarianism is in
many respects a response to the dilemmas associated
with food ambivalence.
Conclusions
In ,this section, the authors return to many of the ideas
and themes that have driven their research. TheyspellOUt
the significance of the idea of food ambiValence,which is
probably the article's main conrribution to researchinthis
area. The final paragraph outJines the importance of fOOd
ambivalence for vegetarians, but the authors are careful
not to imply that it is the sole reason for the adoptionof
vegetarianism. In the final sentence they write: 'HOwever
for a significant segment of the population [vegetarian:
ism] appears to represent a viable device for re-establishing
some degree of peace of mind when contemplating some
of the darker implications of the carefully arranged
message on the dinner plate' (Beardswonh and Keil
1992: 290). This sentence neatly encapsulates one of the
article's master themes-the idea of vegetarianism as a
response to food ambivalence-and alludes through the
reference to 'the carefully arranged message' to semiotic
analyses of meat and food.
lessons
As with Kelley and De Graaf's article, it is useful to review
some of the lessons learned from this examination of
Beardsworth and Keil's article.
Just like the illustration of quantitative research writ-
ing, there are strong opening sentences, which attract
our attention and give a clear indication of the nature
and content of the article.
The rationale of the research is clear!y identified. Toa
large extent, this revolves around identifying the soci-
ological study of food and eating as a growing area of
research but noting the paucity of investigations of
vegetarianism.
Research questions are specified but they ate some-
what more open-ended than in KeUey and DeGraaf's
article, which is in keeping with the general orienta-
tion of qualitative researchers. The research questions
revolve around the issue of vegetarianism as a dletary
choice and the motivations for that choice.
The research design and methods are outlined and an
indication is given of the approach to analysis. The sec-
tion in which these issues are discussed demonstrates
greater transparency than is sometimes the case with
articles reporting qualitative research.
The presentation and discussion of the findings in
sections 5 and 6 are geared to the broad research
questions that motivated the researchers' interest in
vegetarianism. However, section 6 also represents the
major opportunity for the idea of food ambivalence
and its dimensions to be articulated. The inductive
nature of qualitative research means that the concepts
and theories that are generated from an investigation
must be clearly identified and discussed, as in this
case.
The conclusion elucidates in a more specific way the
significance of the results for the research questions. It
alsoexplores the implications of food ambivalence for
vegetarians, so that' one of the"article's major theoret-
ical contributions is clearly identified and emphasized.
Writing up mixedmethods research
partly because interest in and the practice of mixed
rnethodsresearch has gained momentumonly in relatively
recent times, it has few if any writing conventions. More
particularly, it is difficult to say what an exemplary
or model mixed methods research journal article might
looklike. To a certain extent, it is bound to borrow some
ofthe conventions associated with writing up quantitative
and qualitative research in terms of needing to stan out
with a research focus in the sense of a research problem
and/or some research questions. Creswell and Tashakkori
(2007: 108), the editors of the Journal of MixedMethocis
Research, have suggested that 'good original/empirical
mixedmethods articles' should be:
'well-developed in both quantitative and qualitative
components' (Creswell and Tashakkori 2007: 108) ;
and
'more than reporting two distinct "strands" of quanti-
tative and qualitative research; these studies must also
integrate.Iink, or connect these "strands" in some way'
(Creswell and Tashakkori 2007: 108).
They actually add a third feature of good mixed methods
articles-namely, that they contribute to the literature on
mixed methods research in some way. This seems a rather
tali order for many writers and researchers, so that I
Wouldtend to emphasize the other two features.
The first implies that the quantitative and the qualita-
tive components of a mixed methods article should be
at the very least competently executed. This means that
interms of the fundamental criteria for conducting good
quantitative and good qualitative research, mixed meth-
ods research should conform to both quantitative and
qualitative research criteria. In terms of writing, it means
that, for each of the components, it should be clear what
the research questions were, how the sampling was done,
Writing up social research 675
what the data collection technique(s) was or were, and
qow the data were analysed.
The second feature implies that a good mixed methods
article will be more than the sum of its parts. This issue
relates to a tendency that has been identified by some
writers (e.g . Bryman 2007c; O'Cathain et al. 2007) for
some mixed methods researchers not to make the best use
of their quantitative and qualitative data, in that they
often do not link the two sets of findings so that they
extract the maximum yield from their study. As Creswell
and Tashakkori (2007: 108) put it:
The expectation is that, by the end of the manuscript,
conclusions gleaned from the two strands are
integrated to provide a fuller understanding of the
phenomenon under study. Integration might be in
the form of comparing. contrasting, buildingon, or
embedding one type of conclusion with the other.
To some extent, when writing up the results froma mixed
methods study, researchers might make it easier for
themselves to get across the extra yield associated with
their investigations if they make clear their rationales for
including both quantitative and qualitative components
in their overall research strategy. The issue of rationales
for conducting mixed methods research is one that was
addressed in Chapter 25.
Further advice on writing up mixed methods research
can be found in suggestions in Creswell and Plano Clark's
(2007: 161) delineation of a structure for a mixed rneth-
ods journal article. They suggest that the structure should
be along the following lines.
Introduction. This would include such features as: a
statement of the research problem or issue; an exam-
n t ~ n of the literature on the problem/issue; an
examination of the problems with the prior literature,
which might include indicating why a mixed methods
approach would be beneficial perhaps because much
of the previous research is based mainly on just quanti-
tative or qualitative research; and the specific research
questions.
Methods. This would include such features as: indicat-
ing the rationale for the mixed methods approach; the
type of mixed methods design (see e.g. Morgan's
classification of approaches to mixed methods re-
search in Thinking deeply 25.3) ; data collection and
data analysis methods; and indications of how the
quality of the data can bejudged.
676 Writ ing up social research

...! ;
Tips and skills
:0 {'.;it ,,;? rate .' '''i j
........ e ;, j .t '.c;
" ', " ""' l 1- dh....
".p..:; C1 h !,. nr: ! \.. n
f-J.r'l ""
. v . .. . ..1'
I. have noticedthat somestudents conduct mixed methodsinvestigations treat theirquantitative and
qualitative findings as separate domains, so that theypresent one set and then the other.ln.Ph.D. theses and
Masters dissertations, thiscantake the form of separate chapters labelled something like 'survey findings' and
'qualitative interview findings' . This may not be a problemifthe two(or more) setsoffindings arethen
integratedinthe Discussion sections or chapters.However. treatingfindings inthiswaydoestend to
encouragea viewof the quantitative and the qualitative findings as separate spheresandmay therefore
militate againstintegration, which, aswriters like Creswell and Tashakkori (2007) imply, isincreasinglyan
expectationinmixedmethodsstudies. Instead, try to thinkof the quantitative aridthe qualitative findings
thematically acrossthe twosetsof results. so that the findings are presentedintermsof substantive issues
rather than in termsof different methods.
Results. The quantitative and the qualitative findings
might be presented either in tandem or sequentially,
but, if the latter, they would need to be merged in the
Discussion.
Discussion. Summarize and explain results, emphasiz-
ingthe significanceof the mixed methods nature of the
research and what is gained from the presence of both
quantitative and qualitative findings; draw attention
to any limitations of the investigation; and possibly
suggest avenues for future research.
In terms of the overall structure, Creswell and Plano
Clark's (2007) suggestions are more or less the same as
for an article based on quantitative research or an art-
iclebased on qualitative research (see above). It is in the
need to oudine the mixed methods nature of the research
and to bring the two sets of findings together that the dis-
tinctiveness of a mixed methods journal article can be
discerned.
An example of mixed methods wr iting
Many of these features can be seen in the study of the
food-and-mouth crisis by Poortinga et aL (2004). This
article has been previously encountered in Research in
focus 1.8 and 25.3. It may be worth looking back at these
two accounts as a reminder of the study. The following
examination of the writing of this article is organized in
terms of its structure.
Introduction
The article begins with a very strong and clear state-
ment of the focus of the article and its methodological
leanings:
Thirty years of empirical work on publicperceptions
have generated an impressive bodyof findings on
attitudes to the consequences, benefits and
institutional profilesof a range of important riskissues
. .. However, much of the availableresearch tends to
have been conducted when the riskissuesstudiedare
not partlcutarlysalient in publicdebate . Although
there is some evidence fromopinion polling, risk
perception studies are rarelyconducted duringa
major riskcrisis. The present study examines public
attitudes to riskand its management duringone such
crisis: the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease(FMD)
epidemic in Britain. Amixed method study design was
employed, specifically a Quantitativesurvey
conducted at the height of the epidemicfollowed up .
byQualitative focus groups comprisingindividuals who :
had part icipated in the survey. Recent studies have
shown that combiningdifferent research methods can
provide a more comprehensive viewon risk issues
than can anyone methodology alone .. . (Poortinga
et at. 2004: 73-4)
Thisopening passage accomplishes the following:
It locates the study immediatelyin the literature on risk..
It provides a justification for conducting the study at
the rime of the FMDcrisis.
It identifies itself as a mixed methods study and pro-
vides a rationale for a mixed methods approach.
The authors then go on to outline the structure of the arti-
cleso that the reader.has a route rnapforwhar is to come.
The British 2001 Foot and Mouth Crisis
The authors outline the origins of the crisis, its timing, its
extent, and its effects. As a result, the reader is left with a
clear understanding of the nature of the FMDcrisis.
Government policy , trust, and public reactions to the
FMDepidemic
This section provides a justification for the researchers'
emphasis on the significance of trust in the government
and its policies and draws attention to related literature
on the topic. For example, the authors draw attention to a
study of trust in relation to another food-related crisis in
Britain, the BSEcrisis:
losing trust, as occurred to the British government
over the SSE(mad cow) crisis in the mid-1990s, may
have far-reaching consequences (Slovic, 1993), as
people become suspicious about new government
policy interpreted in the light of earlier experiences,
perhaps turning elsewhere for informat ion and advice.
So, it is vitally important to havesome gauge of public
response. Not only regarding perceptions of the FMD
crisisas an event within society, but also as a test case
of the impacts of government policy and industry
responsiveness in the UKin the wake of the SSEcrisis.
(Poortinga et 01. 2004; 75)
- _ ~ _ . - _. - . .... . --.. . . .. ,' . _ .. ~ ., . - ~ . - - ", - ~ . . ..,-.-- - -- .- - 'r. - "
They then outline the nature of their studyin broad-brush
terms, pointing out that it comprised a survey and focus
groups. The authors explain that they emphasized in their
research four aspects of PMD and its management (see
below) and that they were also keen to examine how
perceptions of them differed between the two commu-
nities (see Research in focus 1.8).
Methodology
The discussion of the research design and research
methods is divided into three sections.
Writing upsocial research 677
1. Study locations. The two communities-Bude and
Norwich-are examined, along with a justification for
using these two communities, when they write that they
wanted 'to find out more about differences in attitudes
between communities that were differentially affected by
the epidemic' (Poortinga er aL2004: 75) .
2. The questionnaire survey. The authors explain how
and when the questionnaires were distributed in Bude
and Norwich. They outline the kinds and formats of the
questions that were asked. They provide the response
rates for the two surveys and examine the comparability
of the ensuing samples.
3. Focus groups. The authors explain that the focus group
participants were selected from the questionnaire survey
samples. They provide data on the numbers of particip-
ants and of focus groups, when they took place, and how
long the sessions lasted. The topics for discussion are also
summarized.
Results
The findings are organized into four numbered sections,
each of which deals with one of the four aspects of FMD
and its management that were indicated earlier in the
article: public risk perceptions of FMD; blame; govern-
ment handling of the FMDcrisis; and trust in information
about FMD. It is very striking that, when presenting data
for each of the four aspects of FMD they explored, the
authors present both the quantitative and the qualitative
findings, examining how the two interrelate. For exam-
ple, when discussing the first of the four aspects-public
risk perceptions of FMD-they begin by presenting some
questionnaire data about respondents' levels of concern
about FMD. These questionnaire data derive from Liken
items that asked about levels of agreement with state-
ments like 'My main concerns about FMDare to do with
the possible impacts on the health and welfare of ani-
mals'. Atable is presented showing mean levels of agree-
ment with this and five other items, with the data being
presented for the whole sample, as well as for Bude and
Norwich separately. They then present the focus group
findings, noting that the 'findings of the focus groups
reinforce those of the questionnaire regarding general
concern' (Poortinga er al. 2004: 78). The focus groups
found that participants were deeply concerned about the
slaughter of animals and the rotting carcases, whereas
the questionnaires did not pick up this point. The possible
health effects of these rather than of the disease itselfwas
a concern (the survey and the focus group results both
678 Writing up social research
suggest that there was a low level of concerns about the
direct health effects of FMD).
Discussion
The Discussion section begins by outlining the rationale
for the mixed methods study and what has been gleaned
from it:
may provide answers on how a range of different
drivers, such as the media, policy measures, and local
and individual events (see e.g. Pidgeon et aJ. 2003)
take on various levels of importance for people 's
reaction to a crisis such as FMD. Taken as a Whole,
this study suggests that risk perceptions of a criSis are
embedded in both local and national social contexts.
(Poortinga et al. 2004: 89)
This is a very strong final and conduding paragraph that
leaves readers in no doubt about what the authors believe
is the major contribution of their findings and which
reminds them of the significance of the fact that it is a
mixed methods study.
One feature of this article that is quite striking is mat in
terms of structure and overall approach it is quite similar
to the quantitative and the qualitative research articles
previously examined. Indeed, it was noted that the quali-
tative research article was not dissimilar to the quantita-
tive one. In large part, these similarities can be attributed
to the fact that there are general conventions about how
findings should be written up for academic audiences,
and these conventions act as a template for, and to some
extent restrict, much academic writing. What is striking
about the article by Poortinga el al. is their inclination to
make as much of the mixed methods status and context of
their research as possible, as recommended in the guide-
lines suggested by Creswell and Plano Clark (2007).
This final paragraph is significant and well crafted for
several reasons:
The first sentence restates the mixed methods nature
of the study and that its primary rationale was to pro-
vide a 'comprehensive' overview of the topic.
The major contribution of the research-that it Was
conducted in the course of the crisis-is sug&estedto
the reader in the second sentence. '
The third sentence provides a brief indication of a lim-
itation of the study ('only gives a snapshot') but then
invites the reader not to dwell on this limitation bysug-
gesting that the research ' provided a rich description',
The next three sentences suggest future potentially
fruitful avenues for inquiry.
The final sentence provides a final message for readers
to take away with them, namely, that 'risk perceptions
of a crisis are embedded in both local and national
social contexts'.
The aim of this mixed methodolcgy study was to
investigate public reactions to the FMDepidemic,
support for government policies to get FMDunder
control. and trust in information about FMD. More
specifically, a quantitative survey and qualitat ive focus
groups were conducted to examine how two separate
communities that were affectedto different degrees
by the epidemic responded to the crisis. In this study,
the focus groups were mainly used to illustrate the
findings of the questionnaire. The focus groups
provided valuable additional information, especially
on the reasons, rationalizations and arguments
behind people's understanding of the FMDissue.
(Poortinga et al. 2004: 86)
Thus, the authors restate the mixed methods nature of
the investigation and the rationale for the different com-
ponents. They then proceed to provide a detailed summary
of the main findings. This account of the key findings is
set in the context of other crises, like the BSEcrisis, and
existing literature on crisis management. They reflect
in some detail on the differences between Bude and
Norwich. The final paragraph provides a very strong con-
eluding statement:
In conclusion, the combination of a questionnaire
survey and a focus group study gave a comprehensive
view on people's perceptions and responses to the
2001 FMD epidemic. The unique aspect of this study
is that it has captured perceptions durinq the FMD
crisis. Although it only gives a snapshot of public
attitudes to risk and its management, it provided a
vivid picture of people's perceptions and debates
on FMD at the height of the epidemic. Further
research may provide insight in the dynamics and
the long-term effects of the disease. Some studies
have shown that risk perception can be related to
the amount of press coverage that is given to that
particular risk (Renn et 01. 1992). Additional studies
.....

: .. ..
'"
... .
While attention to the writing-up of mixed methods
research is an area that is in its infancy, the suggestions of
writers mentioned above like Creswell and Tashakkori
(2007) and Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) along with
Writingup socialresearch 679
strong exemplars like the article by Poortinga et al pro-
vide helpful pointers to the ways in which this task should
be

Studentexperi ence
Writer's block
Sometimes when writing we feel as though the words will not come out Rebecca Barnes writes that, when
this happened to her. it usually meant that she needed to return to her data to work out what exactly she
was trying to say.
There have been frustratingtimes when I have been unsure of what to write and have spent many hours
staring at a largelyblank computer screen. I have now realized that when I experience this, it is usually
because I need to return to the data and spend more time planning what I want to say, how, and why it
matters,
Isabella Robbins's response to similar problems was to try to write every day:

Sometimes just getting words on the page is difficult Ihave set myselfthe task of writing1,000words a day,
no matter how incoherent they are. I can usuallyachieve this. Ihave tried to put the thesis into the realmof
'good enough' and 'the last partof my research training' rather than it being 'something exceptional'.
To readmoreabout Rebecca's andIsabella's research experiences. go to the Online Resource Centre that
accompanies thisbook at http://www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm3e/.
Postmodernism and its implications
for writing
Postrnodernisrn (see Key concept 27.2) is an extremely
difficult idea to pin down. In one sense, it can be seen as
a form of sensitivity-a way of seeing and understand-
ing that results in a questioning of the taken-for-granted.
It questions the very notion of the dispassionate social
scientist seeking to uncover a pre-given extemal reality.
Instead, postrnodernists view the social scientist's ac-
count as only one among many ways of rendering social
reality to audiences. The social world itself is viewed as a
context out of which many accounts can be hewn. As a
result, 'knowledge' of the social world is relative; any
account is just one of many possible ways of rendering
social reality. As Rosenau (1992: 8) puts it, postrnod-
ernists 'offer "readings" not "observations," "interpreta-
tions" not "findings" .. .'.
680 Writingup social research

V(dI
Key concept 27.2
What is postmodernism?
Asnoted in the main text, postmodernismis extremely difficult to pin down. Part of the problemisthat, asan
approach, postmodernism isat least two things. One is that it is an attempt to get to gripswiththe nature of
modern societyand culture. The other, which is the more relevant aspect lor this book, isthat it represents a
'Nay of thinkingabout and representing the nature of the social sciences and their claimsto knowledge. In
particular.it isa distinctive sensitivity regardingthe representation of socialscientific findings. Postmodernists .:
tend to be deeply suspiciousof notions that implythat it is possible to arriveat a definitive versionorany
reality. Reportsof findings are viewed as versionsof an external reality, so that the keyissuebecomesoneof
the plausibility of those versions rather than whether they are right or wrongin anyabsolute sense.Typically,
writersof a postmodernist persuasion have lessto say about data-collection issues than about the writing and
representation of socialscience findings. though it is probably the case that they are more sympathetic to
Qualitative than quantitative research (Alvesson 2002). Indeed, postmodernists have probablybeen most
influential in qualitativeresearch when discussingthe nature of ethnographic accounts and questioning the
ethnographer's implicit claimthat he or she has provided a definitiveaccount of a society.Thisthinking can
be discerned inVan Maanen's (1988)implicit critique of 'realist tales' as he called them (Keyconcept 27.5).
For postmodernists, there can be no sense of an objective realityout there waitingto be revealedto and
uncovered bysocial scientists.That realityis always goingto be accessed through narrativesinthe form of
research reports that provide representations. Withthis shift in orientation came an interest inthe language
employed in research reports, likewritten ethnographies, to reveal the devices researchers use to convey the
definitiveness of their findings <Delamont and Atkinson 2004). Postmodernists tend to emphasizethe notion
of reflexivity (see Keyconcept 27.4), which positsthe significance of the researcher for the research process
and consequently the tentativeness of any findings presented ina research report (since the researcheris
always implicatedin his or her findings). As this account of postmodernism implies, postmodemiststendto be
deeply suspicious of any viewof research that impliesthat there are or can be accepted foundations to
knowledge,as is suggested by positivists (see Keyconcept 1.2). Postmodernismisa deeplydisruptive stance
on social research, inthat it problematizes and questions our capacity ever to knowanything. Views vary on
postmodernism's current appeal. Matthewman and Hoey(2006) depict its influenceas having wanedto a
significant extent, whileBloland (2005) argues that it has had an impact on thinkingin manyfields inhigher
education and that this isespeciallynoticeable among those who do not identifythemselves as postmodemists,
One of the effects of the impact of postmodernismsince
the 1980s has been a growing interest in the writing of
social science. For postrnodernists, reporting findings in a
journal article provides merely one version of the social
reality that was investigated. Postmodernists mistrust the
knowledge claims that are frequently boldly made when
findings are reported and instead they adopt an attitude
of investigating the bases and forms of those knowledge
claims and the language that is used to represent them.
This has led to what is described as a linguistic tum
within the social sciences (Key concept 27.3). While the
writing of all types of social science is potentially in the
postmodernist's firing line, it has been the kinds of text
produced by ethnographers that have been a particular
focus of attention. This focus has led to a particular inter-
est in the claims to ethnographic authority that are
inscribed into ethnographic texts (Clifford 1983). The
ethnographic text 'presumes a world out there (the real)
that can be captured by a "knowing" author through the
careful transcription and analysis of field materials
(interviews, notes, etc.)' (Denzin 1994: 296). post-
modernism problematizes such accounts and their
authority to represent a reality because there 'can never
be a final, accurate representation of what was meant or
said, only different textual representations of different
experiences' (Denzin 1994: 296).
However, it would be wrong to depict the growing
attention being focused on ethnographic writing as exclu-
sivelya product of postmodernism. Atkinson and Coffey
(1995) have argued that there are other intellectual
trends in the social sciences that have stimulated this
interest. Writers in the area of theory and research known
asthe social studies of science have been concerned with
the limitations of accepted distinctions between rhetoric
and logic and between the observer and the observed
(e.g. Gilbert and Mulkay 1984). The problematizing of
these distinctions, along with doubts about the possibil-
ity of a neutral language through which the natural
and social worlds can be revealed, opened the door for
Writing up social research 681
an evaluation of scientific and social scientific writing.
Some illustrations of these analyses can be discerned in
Th'inking deeply 27.1 and 27.2. Atkinson and Coffey also
point to the antipathywithin feminism towards the image
of the neutral 'observer-author' who assumes a privileged
stance in relation to members of the social setting being
studied. This stance is regarded as revealing a position of
domination of the observer-authoroverthe observed that
is inconsistent with the goals of feminism (see Chapter 16
for an elaboration of this general point). This concerri has
led to an interest in the ways in which privilege is con-
veyed in ethnographic texts and how voices, particularly
of marginal groups, are suppressed.
g
' .
,01"
..... ,.... ,.':"

...... -.-..--5
Key concept 27.3
What is the linguistic turn?
Postmodernismcan also be seen as the stimulus for the linguistic turn inthe socialsciences. The linguistic turn
is based on the idea that languageshapes our understandingof the world. Moreover, because knowledge is
constructed through language, and languagecan never create an objectiverepresentation of external reality,
meaningis uncontrollableand undiscoverable. Thisleads to a rejectionof positivist scientists' claims to be able
to produce reliableknowledge through a neutral process of exploration. Postmodernists argue that knowledge
is never neutral and isconstantlyopen to revision. Theyreject what they see as scientific 'grand' or 'meta'
narrativesthat seek to explainthe worldfroman objectiveviewpoint. Scientific investigation isthus suggested
by postmoderniststo be nothingmorethan a type of 'languagegame' (Rorty 1979) used bythis particular
communityto produce localized understandings. PostTnodernists havealso suggestedthat certain methods can
be more easilyadapted to the linguistic turn, such as qualitativeresearch and inparticular ethnography,
because it can be used to deconstruct claimsto represent realityand can providealternativeversions of reality
that attempt to blur the boundarybetween 'fact' and 'fiction'(Alvesson 2002). The impactof the linguistic turn
can be seen inthe growing use of variousformsof discourse analysis, whichwascovered in Chapter 20.
Discourseanalysishas proveda particularly useful approach for unpacking the roleof languagein shaping
particular versionsof social reality.
Thinkingdeeply 27.2
Rhetorical strategies in writing up
quantitative research
The rhetorical strategies used byquantitativeresearchers includethe following.
There isa tendency to removethe researcher from the text as an activeingredientof the research process
inorder to conveyan impression ofthe objectivenature of the findings-that is, as part of an external
reality that is independent of the researcher (Gusfield 1976). woolgar (1988) refersto thisas an
externalizing device.
682 Writing upsocial research
Theresearcher surfaces in the text only to demonstratehisor her ingenuity in overcoming obstacles
(Bazerman 1987; Bryman 1998).
.
Key figures in the field areroutinely cited to bestowcredibility on the research(McCloskey 1985),
Theresearch process ispresented asalinear one to conveyanair of inevitability about the findings arrived
at (Gusfield 1976).
Relatiyely strict rulesarefollowed about what shouldbereported in published research andhowit should
bereported(Bazerman 1987).
The ~ of amanagement metaphor iscommon in the presentation of findings in whichthe researcher is
depictedasingeniouslv ' "designing"research, "contrOlling" variables, "managing"data, and"generating"
tables'(Bryrnan 1998: 146). See Shapiro <1985-6) and Richardson (1990) on thispoint.
Note that the first two pointsaresomewhat inconsistent. Thereissomeevidence that disciplines withinthe
social sciences differ in respectof their useof an impersonal styleof writing. But it may well alsobethatit
sometimes depends on what the writer istrying to do; for example, sometimes gettingacross asense of one's
cunning.in overcoming practical difficulties can be just asusefulasgivinga sense of the external nature ofthe:
fi(ldings. Therefore, sometimes the style of presentation mayvarysomewhat.
e
.c
. "
Key concept 27.4
What is reflexivity?
Reflexivity hasseveral meanings in the social sciences. The termisemployedby etnnomethodologists torefer
to the wayin whichspeech andactionare constitutive of the social world in which they arelocated: inother
words, they domorethanmerelyact asindicatorsof deeperphenomena (seeChapter20). Theothermeaning
of the termcarries the connotation that social researchers shouldbe reflectiveabout the implications of their
methods, values, biases, anddecisions for the knowledgeof the social world they generate. Related/y,
reflexivity entails a sensitivityto the researcher's cultural. political,and social context. AsSUCh. 'know/edge'
fromareflexiveposition isalways a reflection of a researcher's locationin time andsocial space. Thisnotion is
especially explicit in Pink's(2001)formulation of areflexiveapproach to the useof visual images (see Chapter
17) andin Plummer's (2001) delineation of a reflexiveapproach to life histories (see Keyconcept 18.1).
Therehasbeenevidence of agrowingreflexivity in social research in the formof an industryof books that
collect togetherinsidestories of the research process that detail the nutsand boltsof research asdistinctfrom
the often sanitizedportrayal in research articles. An earlyvolumeedited by Hammond(1964) paved theway
for alargenumberof imitators(e.g. Bell and Newby 1977; Bell and Roberts 1984; Bryman 1988b) , andthe
confessional tales referred to in Keyconcept 27.5 areinvariablymanifestationsof thisdevelopment. Therefore.
the riseof reflexivitylargelypredates the growing awareness of postrnodern thinkingsince the late 1980s.
What distinguishes the reflexivity that hasfollowed in the wakeof postmodernism isa greaterawareness and
acknowledgement of the roleof the researcher aspart and parcelof the constructionof knowledge. Inother
words, the reflexiveattitude within postmodernismishighlycritical of the notion that the researcher is
someone who extractsknowledge fromobservationsand conversationswith othersandthentransmits
knowledge to anaudience. The researcher is viewed as implicatedin the construction of knowledge through
the stance that he or sheassumes in relation to the observed and throughthe ways in which anaccount is
transmittedin the formof atext. Thisunderstandingentailsanacknowledgement of the implications and
significance ofthe researcher's choices asboth observerandwriter.
Writing up social research 683
However, reflexivity isa notoriouslyslipperyconcept. Lynch (2000) has complained that too often it isassumed
that a reflexiveposition issomehow superior to an unreflexiveone. The case for the superiorityof reflexivity is
rarefymade. Moreover, he points out that the term has different meanings. One of these is methodological
reflexivity, whichcomes closest to the kindof reflexivity that is being referred to inthis chapter. However, this
meaning has a number of sub-meanings, three of which are especially prominent in methodological writings.
1. Philosophicalsel{-re{lection: an introspection involving 'an inward-looking, sometimes confessionaland self-
criticalexamination of one's own beliefsand assumptions' (Lynch2000: 29).
2. Methodological setl-consdousness:takingaccount of one's relationships with those whom one studies.
3. Methodological self-criticism: the confessional stvleof ethnography (see Keyconcept 27.5), but Lynch notes
that the injunctionto be selt-critlcal that is associated with such ethnographic writingis much more
pervasive in academic disciplines.
The term 'reflexivity' has to be used with a degree of caution, as Lynch's discussion implies.
The concerns within these and other traditions (includ-
ing posrmodernlsm) have led to experiments in writing
ethnography (Richardson 1994). An example is the use of
a 'dialogic' form of writing that seeks to raise the profile of
the multiplicity of voices that can be heard in the course
of fieldwork. As Lincoln and Denzin (1994: 584) put it:
'Slowly it dawns on us that there may ... be . . . not one
"voice", but polyvocality; not one story, but many tales,
dramas, pieces of fiction, fables, memories, histories,
autobiographies. poems, and other texts to infonn our
sense of lifeways, to extend our understandings of the
Other . . .'.
Manning (1995) cites, as an example of the postrnod-
em preference for allowing a variety of voices to come
through within an ethnographic text , the work of Stoller
(1989), who conducted research in Africa. Manning
(1995: 260) describes the text as 'periodically' dialogic in
that it is 'shaped by interactions between informants or
"the other" and the observer'. This postmodern prefer-
ence for seeking out multiple voices and for turning the
ethnographer into a 'bit player' reflects the mistrust
among posonodernists of'meta-narratives'-that is, posi-
tions or grand accounts that implicitly make daims about
absolute truths and that therefore rule out the poss ibility
of alternative versions of reality. On the other hand,
'mini-narratives, micro-narratives, local narratives are
just stories that make no truth daims and are therefore
more acceptable to posunodemists' (Rosenau 1992:
p. xiii).
Postmodernism has also encouraged a growing
reflexivity in considerations about the conduct of social
research, and the growing interest in the writing of
ethnography is very much a manifestation of this trend
(see Key concept 27.4). This reflexivity can be discerned
in the way in which many ethnographers have turned
inwards to examine the truth claims inscribed in their
own classic texts, which is the focus of the next section.
In the end, what postmodernism leaves us with is an
acute sense of uncenainty. It raises the issue of how we
can ever know or capture the social reality that belongs to
others and in so doing it points to an unresolvable tension
that will not go away and that is further revealed in the
issues raised in the next section, because, to quote Lincoln
and Denzin (1994: 582) again: 'On the one hand there is
the concern for validity, or certainty in the text as a form
of isomorphism and authenticity. On the other hand,
there is the sure and certain knowledge that all texts are
socially, historically, politically, and culturally located.
We, like the texts we write, can never be transcendent.' At
the same time, of course, such a view renders problematic
the very idea of what social scientific knowledge is or
comprises.
684 Writing up social research

Writing ethnography'
The term 'ethnography', as noted in Chapter 17, is inter-
esting, because it refers both to a method of social
research and to the finished product of ethnographic
research. In other words, it, is both something that is car,
"ried outin doing researchand something that one reads."
Thus, writing seems to be at the heart of the ethnographic
enterprise. In recent years, the production of ethno-
graphic texts has become 'a focus of interest in its own ,
right. This means that there has been a growth of interest
not just in how ethnography is carried out in the fieldbut
also in the rhetorical conventions employed U; the P(!> z
duction of ethnographic texts.
Ethnographic texts are designed to convince readers
of the reality of the events and situations described, and
the plausibility of the analyst's explanations. The ethno-
graphic text must not simply present a set of findings: it
must provide an 'authoritative' account of the group or
culture in question. In other words, the ethnographer
must convince us that he or she has arrived at an account
of social reality that has strong claims 10 truth.
The ethnographic text is permeated by stylistic and
rhetorical devices whereby the reader is perSUaded to
enter into a shared framework of facts and interpreta_
tions.observations and reflections, Just likethe scientific
pape} and the kind of approach towriting foundinrepol1_
ing quantitative social research, the ethnographer typic-
ally works within a writing strategy that is imbued with
realism. This simply means that the researcher presents
an authoritative, dispassionate account that represents
an external, objective reality. In this respect, there isvery
little difference between the writing styles of quantitalive .
and qualitative researchers. Van Maanen (1988) calls
ethnography texts that conform to these characteristics
realist tales. These are the common type of ethnographic
writing, though he distinguishes other types (see Key
concept 27.5). However, thefonn that this realismtakes
differs. Van Maanen distinguishes four characteristics of
realist tales: experiential authority; typical forms ; the
native's point of view; and interpretive omnipotence.
e
Key concept 27.5
Three forms of ethnographic writing
VanMaanen(1988) has distinguished three majortypesofethnographicwriting.
1. Realisttoles-apparently definitive, confident, and dispassionate third-person accounts ofa culture andof
the behaviour of membersof that culture. This isthe most prevalent form of ethnographic writing.
2. Confessionaltales-personalized accountsinwhich the ethnographerisfully implicated inthe data-
gathering and writing-up processes. These are warts-and-all accountsof the trials and tribulations ofdoing
ethnography, Theyhavebecomemoreprominentsincethe 1970s and reflecta growing emphasis on
reflexivity in qualitative research inparticular. Several ofthe sourcesreferred to in Chapter17are
confessional tales (e.g. Armstrong 1993: Hobbs1993; Giulianotti 1995). However, confessional tales are
more concernedwithdetailing howresearchwascarried out thanwithpresenting findings . Very oftenthe
confessional tale istold inone context(suchas an invited chapter ina bookof similar tales), but the main
findings are writtenup inrealist taleform.
3. Impressionisttoles-accounts that placea heavyemphasis on 'words, metaphors, phrasings, and . . . the
expansive recall offieldwork experience' (Van Maanen1988: 102). Thereisa heavy emphasis on stories of
dramatic eventsthat provide 'a representational meansofcracking open the cultureand the fieldworker's
wayof knowing it' (Van Maanen1988: 102). However, as VanMaanen (1988: 106) notes, impressionist tales
'are typically enclosedwithin realist,or perhaps morefrequently, confessional tales',
Experiential authority .
Just as in much quantitative research writing, the author
disaPpears from view when writing ethnography. We are
toldwhat members of a group say and do, and they are
theonly people directlyvisible in the text. The author pro-
videsa narrative in which he or she is no longer to be seen.
As a result, an impression is conveyed that the findings
presented are what any reasonable, similarly placed
researcher would have found . As readers, we have to
accept that this is what the ethnographer saw and heard
whileworking as a participant observer or whatever. The
personal subjectivity of the author/ethnographer is essen-
tially played down by this strategy. The possibility that
the fieldworker may have his or her own biases or may
i ~ v become too involved with the people being studied
issuppressed. To this end, when writing up the results of
their ethnographic work, authors play up their academic
credentials and qualifications, their previous experience,
and so on. All this enhances the degree to which the
author's account can be relied upon. The author/ethno-
grapher can then appear as a reliable witness .
A further element of experiential authority is that,
when describing their methods, ethnographers invariably
make a great deal of the intensiveness of the research that
they carried out-theyspent so many months in the field,
had conversations and interviews with countless indi-
viduals, worked hard to establish rapport, and so on.
These features are also added to by drawing the reader's
attention to such hardships as the inconvenience of the
fieldwork-the danger, the poor food, the disruptive
effect on normal life, the feelings of isolation and loneli-
ness, and so on. Alsoworth mentioning are the extensive
quotations from conversations and interviews that invari-
ably form part of the ethnographic report. These are also
obviouslyimportant ingredients of the author's use of evid-
ence to support points. However, they are a mechanism
for establishing the credibility of the report in that they
demonstrate the author's ability to encourage people to
talk and so demonstrate that he or she achieved rapport
with them. The copious descriptive details-of places,
patterns of behaviour, contexts, and so on--can also be
viewed as a means of piling on the sense of the author
being an ideally placed witness for alI the findings that
have been uncovered.
Typical forms
The author often writes about typical forms ofinstitutions
or of patterns of behaviour. What is happening here is
that the author is generalizing about a number of recur -
ring features of the group in question to create a typical
form t11at that feature takes. He or she may use examples
based on particular incidents or people, but basically the
emphasis is upon the general. For example, in Taylor's
(1993) conclusion to her ethnographic research on female
drug users, which was cited several times in Chapter 17,
we encounter findings such as these; 'Yet the control exer-
cised over women through the threat to remove their chil-
dren highlights a major factor differentiating female and
male drug users . Unlike male drug users, female drug
users, like many other women, have two careers : one in
the public sphere and one in the private, domestic sphere'
(Taylor 1993: 154) . This is meant to portraydrug users in
general, so that individuals are import ant only in so far as
they represent such general tendencies,
The native's point of view
The point has been made several times that one of the dis-
tinguishing features of much qualitative research is the
commitment to seeing through the eyes of the people
being studied. This is an important feature for qualitative
researchers because it ispan of a strategy of getting at the
meaning of social reality from the perspective of those
being stud ied. However, it also represents an important ele-
ment in creating a sense of authoritativeness on the pan of
the ethnographer. After all, claiming that he or she takes
the native's point of view and sees through his or her eyes
means that he or she is in an excellent position to speak
authoritatively about the group in question. The very fact
that the ethnographer has taken the native's point of view
testifies to the fact that he or she is well placed to write
definitively about the group in question. Realist tales fre-
quently include numerous references to the steps taken
by the ethnographer to get close to the people stud ied and
his or her success in this regard . Thus, for her research on
female drug users, Taylor (1993: 16) writes:
Events I witnessed or took part in ranged fromthe
very routine (sitting around drinking coffee and eating
junk food) to accompanying various women on visits
to DSS [Department of Social Security] officesor to
the HIV clinic; Iaccompanied them when they were
in court, and even went flat-hunting with one woman.
Jwent shopping with some, helping them choose
clothes for the ir children and presents for their
friends. I visited them in their homes. rehabilitation
centres. and maternity wards, sat with them through
686 Writingup social research
withdrawals, watched them using drugs, and
accompanied them when they went 'scoring'
(buying drugs) . (Taylor 1993: 16)
Similarly, referring to his study of a factory in a small
Nelsh community, Delbridge (1998: 19) writes:
I stood out a sore. thumb .. , Myactual
participation i'n the tasks which faced the workers
helped to break down the barriers and several people
approached me over the weeks and told me that
when they actually saw me sitting there alongside
them day after day they began to have some respect
for what I was doing. It was important to be able to
develop some shared ground.
He goes on to say:
the relationships developed over long hours working
on the shop floor, chatting over lunch. moaning about
the weather, and so on. In the close-knit village
community, I soon got involved in long conversations
about families, mine and theirs , which was a most
unusual topic in the social world from which I had
come.... the common ground we found in our family
lives cemented relationships and founded them on
something other than a student/subject basis.
(Delbridge 1998: 20)
These passages are very effective in demonstrating
how the ethnographer was able gradually to be trans.
from an outsider to an insider with similar experi.
ences and concerns. As such. his credibility as someone
who can speak authoritatively about these workers and
their lives is enhanced.
Interpretative omnipotence
When writing up an ethnography, the author rarely pre'.
sents possible alternative interpretations of an event or
pattern of behaviour. Instead, the phenomenon in ques.
tion is presented as having a single meaning or signi.
ficance, which the fieldworker alone has cracked. Indeed
the provided is carefully marshalled to
the 'i ingular interpretation that 'is placed on the eVent
or pattern of behaviour. We are presented with an
inevitability. It seems obvious or inevitable that someone
would draw the inferences that the author has drawn
when faced with such clear-cut evidence.
These four characteristics of realist tales imply that
what the researcher did as a researcher is only one pan
of creating a sense of having figured out the nature of
a culture. It is also very much to do with how the
researcher represents what he or she did through writing
about ethnography. For the postmodernist position, any
realist tale is merely one 'spin'-that is one version, that
can be or has been formulated in relation to the culture in
question.
6
Checklist
Issues to consider for writing up a piece of research
o Have you clearly specified your research questions?
o Have you clearly indicated how the literature you have read relates to your research questions?
o Isyour discussion of the literature critical and organized so that it is not just a summary of what you
have read?
o Have you clearly outlined your research design and your research methods. including:
o why you chose a particular research design?
o why you chose a particular research method?
o how you selected your research participants?
o whether therewereanyissues to do with cooperation (e.g, response rates)?
o whyyouimplemented your research in,aparticularway(e.g, howthe interviewquestions
relateto your research questions, why youobserved participants in particularsituations, why
your focus groupguideasked the questionsin a particularwayandorder)?
o if your research requiredaccess to anorganization. howandonwhat basis was agreement for
access forthcoming?
o steps youtook to ensure that your research was ethicallyresponsible;
o howyouanalysed your data?
o anydifficulties youencountered in the implementation of your research approach.
o Have youpresented your datain amannerthat relates to your research questions?
o Doesyour discussion of your findings showhowthey relateto your research questions?
o Doesyour discussion of your findings showhow theyshed light on the literaturethat youpresented?
o Are the'interpretations of the datathat you offerfully supportedwith tables,' figures, or segments
from transcripts?
o If youhavepresented tables and/or figures, arethey properlylabelledwith a title andnumber?
o If you have presented tables and/or figures, arethey commented uponinyour discussion?
o Doyour conclusions clearlyallowthe readerto establish what your research contributes to the
literature?
o Haveyouexplained the limitationsof your study?
o Doyour conclusionsconsist solely of asummary of your findings?If they do, rewrite them!
o Doyour conclusionsmake clearthe answers to your research questions?
o Does your presentation of the findings andthe discussion allow aclearargumentandnarrativeto be
presented to the reader?
o Have youbrokenup the text in each chapterwith appropriatesubheadings?
o Doesyour writing avoid sexist, racist. anddisablist language?
o Have youincludedall appendices that youmight needto provide(e.g. interviewschedule, letters
requesting access, communications with research participants)?
o Have youchecked that your list of references includes all the itemsreferred to in yourtext?
o Haveyouchecked that your list of references follows precisely the stylethat your institution
requires?
o Have youfollowedyour supervisor's suggestions when heor shehas commented onyour draft
chapters?
o Haveyou got peopleother thanyour supervisor to readyour draft chapters for you?
o Haveyouchecked to ensure that thereisnot excessive useof jargon?
o Doyouprovideclear signposts in thecourse of writing, sothat readers areclearaboutwhat to
expect next andwhy it isthere?
o Have youensured that your institution'srequirements for submittingprojects arefullymet in terms
of such issues aswordlength(sothat it isneither too longnor too short)andwhetheranabstract and
tableof contents arerequired?
e
G
o Have you ensured that you do not quote excessively when presenting the literature?
o Have you fully acknowledged the work of others so that you cannot be accusedof plagiarism?
o Is there a good correspondence between the title of your project and its contents?
o Have you acknowledged the help of others where this is appropriate (e.g, your supervisor. people
who may have helped with interviews, people who read your drafts)?
,',
Key points
Good writing is probably just asimportant as good research practice. Indeed. it is probably better
thought of as a part of good research practice.
.' .
Clear structure and statement of your research 'tuestions are important components of writing up
research,
Be sensitive to the ways in which writers seek to persuade us of their points of view.
The study of rhetoric and writing strategies generally teaches us that the writings of scientistsand
social scientists do more than simply report findings. They are designed to convince and to
persuade.
The emphasis on rhetoric is not meant to imply that there is no external social reality; it merely
suggests that our understanding of that reality is profoundly influenced by the ways it is represented
by writers.
While postmodernism has exerted a particular influence on this last point, writers working within
other traditions have also contributed to it.
The basic structure of and the writing strategies employed in most quantitative and qualitative
research articles are broadly similar.
We need to get away from the idea that rhetoric and the desire to persuade others of the validity of
our work are somehow bad things. They are not. We all want to get our points across and to
persuade our readers that we have got things right. The question is-do we do it well? Do we make
the best possible case?We all have to persuade others that we have got the right angle on things;
the trick is to do it well. So, when you write an essay or dissertation, do bear in mind the significance
of your writing strategy.
Questions for review
Why is it important to consider the ways in which social research is written up?
Writing up your research
Why is it important to be clear about your main argument when writing up your findings?
Writing up quantitative research
Read an article based on quantitative research in a British sociology journal. How far does it exhibit
the same characteristics as Kelley and De Graafs (1997) article?
Writ ing up social research 689
What is meant by rhetorical strategy?Whymight rhetorical strategies be important in relationto the
writing-upof social research?
.
DoKelley and De Graafemployan empiricist repertoire?
Writing up qualitative research
Readan article based on quantitative research ina British sociologyjournal. Howfar does it exhibit
the same characteristics as Beardsworth and Keil's (1992) article?
Howfar is the structure of Beardsworthand Keil's article different from Kelley and De Graafs?
Writing upmixedmethodsresearch
Readan article based on quantitative research ina British sociology journal. Howfar does it exhibit
the same characteristics as the one by Poortlngaet al.?
Postmodernism andits. implications for writing
Whyhas postmodernism produced a growthof interest in writingsocial research?
What is reflexivity?
Writing ethnography
Howfar is it true to say that ethnographicwritingistypicallyimbued with realism?
What forms of ethnographic writing other than realist tales (an be found?
What are the maincharacteristicsof realist tales?
Online Resource Centre
http://www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/brymansrm3e/
Visit the Online Resource Centre that accompanies thisbook to enrich your understanding of writing
up social research. Consult weblinks. test yourself using multiple choice questions, and gain further
guidance andinspiration from the Student Researcher's Toolkit.
I