Questioning the ‘Gold Standard’ Thinking in Qualitative Methods from a Practice Theoretical Perspective: Towards Methodological Multiplicity

Abstract

This article discusses the potential methodological implications of working empirically from a practice theoretical perspective. There is a current methodological concern regarding an apparent predominance of interview methods in practice theoretically based research, and whether such methods can produce valid data on every day practices. This methodological concern tends to be based on ‘gold standard’ thinking in qualitative methods, whereby observational data a priori is seen as more valid representations of practices. In the article, I argue that within the otherwise common grounds of practice theories, different research interests call for slightly different methodological research designs. A constructive suggestion is to at least ensure a methodological mix. The article begins with a short outline of the empirical research context: Cultural contestation of food in everyday life. Second, my specific understanding of a practice theoretical perspective is shortly described. Third, the analytical status of different qualitative data-production methods is discussed, particularly the debate about what I call the ‘gold standard thinking’ on the relationship between participant observation and interviewing, and how this debate relates to empirical applications of a practice theoretical perspective through the concept of enactments. Finally, I empirically exemplify different ways of striking a balance between addressing the embodied and discursive dimensions of practices in data production and analysis.