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