Revisiting ethnography by proxy

References

• Adair, J. K. (2011). Advocating for ethnographic work in early childhood federal policy: Problems and possibilities. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 42, 422–433.10.1111/aeq.2011.42.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agar, M. (1980). The professional stranger. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Borneman, J., & Hammoudi, A. (2009). The fieldwork encounter, experience, and the making of truth: An introduction. In J. Borneman & A. Hammoudi (Eds.), Being there: The fieldwork encounter and the making of truth (pp. 1–24). Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/california/9780520257757.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Breglia, L. (2009). The ‘work’ of ethnographic fieldwork. In J. D. Faubion & G. E. Marcus (Eds.), Fieldwork is not what it used to be: Learning anthropology’s method in a time of transition (pp. 129–142). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deane, K., & Stevano, S. (2016). Towards a political economy of the use of research assistants: Reflections from fieldwork in Tanzania and Mozambique. Qualitative Research, 16, 213–228.10.1177/1468794115578776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deeb, H., & Marcus, G. (2011). In the green room: An experiment in ethnographic method at the WTO. Political & Legal Anthropology Review, 34, 51–76.
   Google Scholar
• Dourish, P. (2014). Reading and interpreting ethnography. In J. S. Olson & W. A. Kellogg (Eds.), Ways of knowing in HCI (pp. 1–23). New York, NY: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8
   Google Scholar
• Downey, G., Dalidowicz, M., & Mason, P. (2015). Apprenticeship as method: Embodied learning in ethnographic practice. Qualitative Research, 15, 183–200.10.1177/1468794114543400
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drake, D., & Harvey, J. (2014). Performing the role of ethnographer: Processing and managing the emotional dimensions of prison research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17, 489–501.10.1080/13645579.2013.769702
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226206851.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, G. (2011). If ethnography is more than participant-observation, then relations are more than connections: The case for nonlocal ethnography in a world of apparatuses. Anthropological Theory, 11, 375–395.10.1177/1463499611429904
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forsey, M. (2010). Ethnography as participant listening. Ethnography, 11, 558–572.10.1177/1466138110372587
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forsythe, D. (1999). “It’s just a matter of common sense”: Ethnography as invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 127–145.10.1023/A:1008692231284
   Google Scholar
• Geertz, C. (1988). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gusterson, H. (1997). Studying up revisited. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 20, 114–119.10.1525/pol.1997.20.issue-1
   Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. (2006). Ethnography: Problems and prospects. Ethnography and Education, 1, 3–14.10.1080/17457820500512697
   Google Scholar
• Hobbs, D., & May, T. (Eds.). (1993). Interpreting the field: Accounts of ethnography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• James, A. (2013). Seeking the analytic imagination: Reflections on the process of interpreting qualitative data. Qualitative Research, 13, 562–577.10.1177/1468794112446108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, D. (1970). Towards a native anthropology. Human Organization, 29, 251–259.10.17730/humo.29.4.717764244331m4qv
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, S., & Russell, A. (2011). Being embedded: A way forward for ethnographic research. Ethnography, 12, 398–416.10.1177/1466138110393786
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcus, G. E. (2006). Where have all the tales of fieldwork gone? Ethnos, 71, 113–122.10.1080/00141840600603244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcus, G. E. (2009). Notes toward an ethnographic memoir of supervising graduate research through anthropology’s decades of transformation. In J. D. Faubion & G. E. Marcus (Eds.), Fieldwork is not what it used to be: Learning anthropology’s method in a time of transition (pp. 1–34). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marcus, G. E. (2012). The legacies of writing culture and the near future of the ethnographic form: A sketch. Cultural Anthropology, 27, 427–445.10.1111/cuan.2012.27.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mills, D., & Ratcliffe, R. (2012). After method? Ethnography in the knowledge economy. Qualitative Research, 12, 147–164.10.1177/1468794111420902
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murchison, J. (2010). Ethnography essentials. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Okely, J. (2007). Response to George Marcus ‘How short can fieldwork be?’. Social Anthropology, 15, 357–361.
   Google Scholar
• Phoenix, A., & Brannen, J. (2014). Researching family practices in everyday life: Methodological reflections from two studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17, 11–26.10.1080/13645579.2014.854001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plowman, L. (1996). Rethinking the role of the fieldworker for CSCW: Ethnography by proxy. Cognitive Science Research Paper 417, University of Sussex. Retrieved from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/cogs/research/researchpapers
   Google Scholar
• Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2008). Just picking it up? Young children learning with technology at home. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38, 303–319.10.1080/03057640802287564
   Google Scholar
• Plowman, L., Rogers, Y., & Ramage, M. (1995). What are workplace studies for? In H. Marmolin, Y. Sundblad, & K. Schmidt (Eds.), Proceedings of European conference on computer supported cooperative work (ECSCW ‘95) (pp. 309–324). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Plowman, L., & Stevenson, O. (2012). Using mobile phone diaries to explore children’s everyday lives. Childhood, 19, 539–553.10.1177/0907568212440014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richards, C. (2011). In the thick of it: Interpreting children’s play. Ethnography and Education, 6, 309–324.10.1080/17457823.2011.610582
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, I. (1995). The use of an automatic ‘to do’ list to guide structured interaction. CHI Companion 1995 (pp. 232–233). Denver, CO: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Silverstein, M. (2011). Comments on Deeb and Marcus in the green room, flushed with para-sit[e]ic anticipation. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 34, 77–80.10.1111/plar.2011.34.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E., & Morley, D. (1991). Listening to a long conversation: An ethnographic approach to the study of information and communication technologies in the home. Cultural Studies, 5, 204–227.10.1080/09502389100490171
   Google Scholar
• Teusner, A. (2016). Insider research, validity issues, and the OHS professional: One person’s journey. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19, 85–96.10.1080/13645579.2015.1019263
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallman, S., Dhooge, Y., Goldman, A., & Kosmin, B. (1980). Ethnography by proxy: Strategies for research in the inner city. Ethnos, 45, 5–38.10.1080/00141844.1980.9981187
   Google Scholar
• Wasterfors, D. (2008). Businessmen as folk ethnographers. Ethnography, 9, 235–256.10.1177/1466138108089469
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodward, K. (2008). Hanging out and hanging about. Insider/outsider research in the sport of boxing. Ethnography, 9, 534–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar