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, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
