Advertisement

The Promise and Process of Ethnography: What We Have Learned Studying Gang Members and CPS Kids

  • Gabriel T Cesar
  • Scott H. Decker
Chapter

Abstract

Researchers in the social sciences face conflicting pressures to produce work that is both impactful to their field of study and feasible within time and resource constraints. These pressures are particularly acute for junior academics, but they extend throughout the career of professional researchers. Ethnography is an approach to research that cannot only afford many benefits in this regard but also challenges. While ethnography offers a “ground-up” approach that makes innovation more readily available, the commitments required by such an approach are substantial. In this chapter, we detail our individual pathways into fieldwork and qualitative analysis. We then outline some of the lessons we have learned and questions that have emerged after years of ethnographic research with kids in gangs and child protective services. In short, ethnography can make your career awesome but only if you are willing and able to stomach some risks, commit yourself fully, and navigate emerging problems.

Keywords

Graduate school Fieldwork Community engagement Career development Academic mentorship 

References

  1. Anderson, N. (1923). The hobo: The sociology of the homeless. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, H. S. (1967). Whose side are we on? Social Problems, 14(3), 239–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernard, H. R. (2012). The science in social science. PNAS, 109(5), 20796–20799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brewin, C. R., Lanius, R. A., Novac, A., Schnyder, U., & Galea, S. (2009). Reformulating PTSD for DSM-V: Life after criterion A. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22(5), 366–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brezina, T., Tekin, E., & Topalli, V. (2009). “Might not be a tomorrow”: A multimethods approach to anticipated early death and youth crime. Criminology, 47(4), 1091–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheng, T. (2018). Recruitment through rule breaking: Establishing social ties with gang members. City & Community, 17(1), 150–169.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Decker, S. H., & Van Winkle, B. (1996). Life in the gang: Family, friends and violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fader, J. J. (2013). Falling back: Incarceration and transitions to adulthood among urban youth. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., et al. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goffman, A. (2014). On the run: Fugitive life in an American City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goffman, E. (1968). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  12. Hudson, K. L., & Collins, F. S. (2015). Bringing the common rule into the 21st century. New England Journal of Medicine, 373(24), 2293–2296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacobs, B. A. (2000). Robbing drug dealers: Violence beyond the law. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  14. Jacobs, B. A., & Wright, R. (2006). Street justice: Retaliation in the criminal underworld. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jacques, S., & Wright, R. (2010). Right or wrong? Toward a theory of IRBs’ (dis)approval of research. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21, 42–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of crime. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Manning, P. K. (2015). Qualitative research as theorizing. In J. Miller & W. R. Palacios (Eds.), Qualitative research in criminology (pp. 51–66). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Maruna, S. (2010). Mixed method research in criminology: Why not go both ways? In A. R. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 123–140). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller, J. (2008). Getting played: African American girls, urban inequality, and gendered violence. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  20. Patton, D. U., Eschmann, R. D., & Butler, D. A. (2013). Internet banging: New trends in social media, gang violence, masculinity and hip hop. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A54–A59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Patton, D. U., Hong, J. S., Ranney, M., Patel, S., Kelley, C., Eschmann, R., et al. (2014). Social media as a vector for youth violence: A review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 548–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Russell, J. R., Kerwin, C., & Halverson, J. L. (2018). Is child protective services effective? Children and Youth Services Review, 84, 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Shaw, C. R. (1930). The Jack roller. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  25. Sutherland, E. (1937). The professional thief. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Tapia, M., & Martinez, R. O. (2017). Ethics review and the minority ethnographer: A case study in racialized invalidation. Race and Justice, 17(2), 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thrasher, E. (1929). The gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Topalli, V. (2005). Criminal expertise and offender decision-making: An experimental analysis of how offenders and non-offenders differentially perceive social stimuli. British Journal of Criminology, 45(3), 269–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Topalli, V., & Wright, R. (2014). Affect and the dynamic foreground of predatory street crime. In J. L. Van Gelder, H. Elffers, D. Reynald, & D. S. Nagin (Eds.), Affect and cognition in criminal decision making (p. 42). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tracy, S. J. (2012). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Venkatesh, S. (2008). Gang leader for a day. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  33. Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street corner society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Wright, R., & Decker, S. H. (1994). Burglars on the job. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Wright, R., & Decker, S. H. (1997). Armed robbers in action. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wright, R., Decker, S. H., Redfern, A. K., & Smith, D. L. (1992). A snowball’s chance in hell: Doing fieldwork with active residential burglars. Journal of Research in crime and Delinquency, 29(2), 148–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wright, R., Jacques, S., & Stein, M. (2015). Where are we? Why are we here? Where are we going? How do we get there? The future of qualitative research in American criminology. In Miller, J., and Palacios, W. R. (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Criminology, 339–350. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel T Cesar
    • 1
  • Scott H. Decker
    • 2
  1. 1.Florida Atlantic UniversityBoca RatonUSA
  2. 2.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations