{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013850415512465374, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.491017964071856, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Ethnographic Critique of Ethnography: Sectarianism in the RUC

Ethnography has always been subject to criticism from quantitative sociologists, who accord it a minimal role, but it has recently come under attack from sociologists sympathetic to the method, who themselves have considerable experience in its use. I call this the ethnographic critique of ethnography. This critique questions the reliability of ethnographic descriptions, and shows ethnographic texts to be artefacts, skilfully manufactured in order to construct their persuasive force. This paper offers a defence of ethnography. It identifies the strengths and weaknesses of ethnographic data, and explores some of the procedures an ethnographer must adopt in order to give authority to the data. Some of these procedures are applied to the highly controversial question of sectarianism in the RUC. However, this substantive topic is also useful for illustrating the limits of rules of method to adjudicate those differences between ethnographers and readers of their texts which extend beyond technical matters.