ABSTRACT
Concern has sometimes been registered, even by ethnographers themselves, about the ahistorical character of much ethnographic research. Stephen Ball, for example, has pointed out how we often neglect the temporal patterns operating in the settings we study and that this seriously threatens the validity of our accounts (Ball 1983a). Others have pointed to the importance of biographical factors in sociological explanations (Pollard 1982). It has also been noted how, over the past forty years, ethnography has come to be identified with participant observation, life-history work suffering a serious decline; though there are now signs of a revival (Bertaux 1981; Plummer 1983). Lynch (1977) raises the issue in a particularly striking manner, criticising ethnographers for a lack of interest in the 'future history' of the groups they study. He cites the case of Lofland's work on a 'Doomsday Cult' (Lofland 1966), suggesting that we can now recognise the latter as having been one of the seed groups of the Moonies. He bemoans the fact that we have no study of how this small cult was transformed into the widespread movement of today.
