Atkinson, P. A.1992. Understanding ethnographic texts. London: Routledge.
2.
Geertz, C.1973a. Deep play: Notes on the Balinese cockfight. In The interpretation of cultures, edited by C. Geertz, 413-453. New York: Basic Books.
3.
Geertz, C.1973b. Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The interpretation of cultures, edited by C. Geertz, 3-30. New York: Basic Books.
4.
Geertz, C.1983. From the native’s point of view: On the nature of anthropological understanding. In Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology, edited by C. Geertz, 55-70. New York: Basic Books.
5.
Hammersley, M.1992. What’s wrong with ethnography?: Methodological explorations. New York: Routledge.
6.
Horwitz, R. P.1993. Just stories of ethnographic authority. In When they read what we write: The politics of ethnography, edited by C. B. Brettell, 131-143. Westport, CN: Bergin & Garvey.
7.
Jones, T.1998. Interpretive social science and the “native’s point of view”: Acloser look. Philosophy of the Social Sciences28 (1): 32-68.
8.
Jones, T.1999. Arbitrary arbitrariness: Reply to Segal. Philosophy of the Social Sciences29 (2): 310-314.
9.
Marcus, G. E.1982. Rhetoric and the ethnographic genre in anthropological research. In A crack in the mirror: Reflexive perspectives in anthropology, edited by J. Ruby, 163-171. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
10.
Resnik, D.1996. Social epistemology and the ethics of research. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science27 (4): 565-586.
11.
Rosaldo, R.1993. After objectivism. In The cultural studies reader, edited by S. During, 104-117. London: Routledge.
12.
Roth, P. A.1989. How narratives explain. Social Research56 (2): 449-478.
13.
Segal, D. A.1999. A response to Jones’s critique of interpretive social science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences29 (2): 306-309.
14.
Taylor, C.1971. Interpretation and the sciences of man. Review of Metaphysics25 (1): 32-61.
