In this article, we address issues of attribution, utility, and accountability in ethnographic research. We examine the two main analytical approaches that have structured the debate on data collection and theorization in ethnography over the last five decades: an inductivist approach, with grounded theory as its main analytic strategy; and a deductivist stance, which uses field sites to explore empirical anomalies that enable an ethnographer to test and build upon pre-existing theories. We engage recent reformulations of this classical debate, with a specific focus on abductive and reflexive approaches in ethnography, and then weigh into these debates, ourselves. drawing on our own experiences producing and using research in non-academic settings. In so doing, we highlight the importance of strategy and accountability in one’s ethnographic practices and accounts, advocating for an approach to ethnographic research that is reflexive and overtly responsive to the knowledge needs and change goals articulated by non-academic collaborators. Ultimately, we argue for a research stance that we describe as tactical responsivity, whereby researchers work with key collaborators and stakeholders to identify the strategic aims and audiences for their research, and develop ethnographic, analytic, and communicative practices that enable them to generate and mobilize the knowledge required to actualize their shared aims.

在本文中，我们讨论了民族志研究中的归因、效用和问责制问题。我们研究了过去 5 年中关于民族志数据收集和理论化辩论的两种主要分析方法：归纳主义方法，以扎根理论为主要分析策略；以及演绎主义的立场，它使用实地站点来探索经验异常，使民族志学家能够测试并建立在预先存在的理论之上。我们最近对这场经典辩论进行了重新表述，特别关注民族志中的溯因和反身方法，然后我们自己权衡这些辩论。借鉴我们自己在非学术环境中生产和使用研究的经验。这样做时，我们强调战略和责任在一个人的民族志实践和帐户中的重要性，倡导一种对民族志研究的方法是反思性的，并且公开响应非学术合作者提出的知识需求和变革目标。最终，我们主张一种我们将其描述为战术响应性的研究立场，即研究人员与主要合作者和利益相关者合作，以确定他们研究的战略目标和受众，并开发民族志、分析和交流实践，使他们能够产生和动员实现他们共同目标所需的知识。