Prof. Thompson is correct and I replied such, but think it went only to
him not the list. Anyway, that is why anthropologists insist on
participant observation and rely a lot more on "natural" communication,
stories, conversations, etc. than on formal interviews, quantitative
data, and so called "qualitative" data collection used by sociologists.
A sociologist completed a $500,000 statistical study in order to find a
brothel in his city. He rushed to that establishment only to find the
anthropologist in the lounge playing the piano.
davew
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 11:19:39 EDT, PPARYSKI at aol.com said:
> Fellow cohorts,
>
> I certainly agree with Herr Prof. Thompson. In my experience in
> developing
> (?) third and fourth world countries, people interviewed generally told
> the
> interviewer what they thought the interviewer would like to hear. This
> was
> particularly true for the poor who hoped to gain something from the
> process.
> Observation of what people actually do can be a more powerful tool at
> times.
> Ort simply letting people tell their story as was done in the remarkable
> book
> Aikenfield.
>
> Perhaps all GIS systems should include anecdotal information?
>
> Paul Paryski
>
>
>
> ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new
> AOL at
>
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Locked
