ABSTRACT
This chapter assesses the rationale for critical ethnography. It outlines the basis for the type of research, drawing particularly on the work of Jurgen Habermas. The chapter argues that while the criticisms of conventional ethnography made by critical theorists include some sound points, it is not a viable approach to research. It examines four issues: the teleological view of history built into orthodox Marxism; the relationship between research and practice that is assumed by critical theorists; the question of the criteria by which critical accounts should be evaluated; and the problems that critical ethnography inherits from conventional social research. The chapter argues that neither of these provides a sound basis for assessing the validity of theories. It points out that in addition to these distinctive problems critical ethnography inherits most of the methodological problems that have long preoccupied social scientists; indeed, if anything it faces these in more severe forms.
