Hofstetter2024
| Hofstetter2024 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Hofstetter2024 |
| Author(s) | Emily Hofstetter |
| Title | A novice inquiry into unique adequacy |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Unique adequacy requirement, Ethnography, Ethnomethodology, Competency, Novice, Seeing order, Constituency office, Rock climbing |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2024 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Qualitative Research |
| Volume | 24 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 81–98 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/14687941221132959 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
In this paper, I question how a researcher might fulfil the unique adequacy requirement when studying novices in a setting in which the researcher is already a member. Since novices by definition lack the expected competencies in a setting, having unique adequacy for novice methods may appear oxymoronic. However, this paper suggests that unique adequacy requires enacting specific ways of ‘seeing’ as part of accomplishing local order; once one is competent, it becomes difficult to enact incompetent action in a locally adequate way, suggesting one can actually lose unique adequacy. Furthermore, as any given situated involves a multifaceted set of competencies, exactly which or whose competencies are relevant is both an analysts’ and members’ issue to solve. With reference to examples, I discuss how analysts and members delimit the ‘provinces of meaning’ in the process of finding what is locally adequate.
Notes
