AyresL. (2008). Thematic coding and analysis. In GivenL. M. (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 867–868). Sage Publications.
2.
BhargavN. (2024, June). Navigating insider–outsider dilemmas in the ethnography of journalistic practices. Economic & Political Weekly, 59(26–27), 90–91.
3.
BoyatzisR. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications.
4.
BukamalH. (2022). Deconstructing insider–outsider researcher positionality. British Journal of Special Education, 49(3), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12426
5.
DawsonC. (2013). Advanced research methods: A practical guide for social research (Kindle ed.). Constable & Robinson.
6.
ElliotM., FairweatherI., OlsenW., & PampakaW. (2016). A dictionary of social research methods. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780191816826.001.0001
7.
GivenL. M. (Ed.). (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909
8.
JerolmackC., & KhanS. R. (Eds.). (2018). Approaches to ethnography: Analysis and representation in participant observation. Oxford University Press.
9.
JunjieM., & YingxinM. (2022). The discussions of positivism and interpretivism. Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(1), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.36348/gajhss.2022.v04i01.002
10.
MilesM. B., HubermanA. M., & SaldañaJ. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
11.
MoilanenP. (2000). Interpretation, truth and correspondence. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(4), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00136
12.
NarayanK. (1993). How native is a ‘native’ anthropologist?American Anthropologist, 95(3), 671–686. http://www.jstor.org/stable/679656
13.
RobinsonH., SegalJ., & SharpH. (2007). Ethnographically-informed empirical studies of software practice. Information and Software Technology, 49(6), 540–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2007.02.007
14.
SchatzE. (2009). Introduction: Ethnographic immersion and the study of power. In SchatzE. (Ed.), Political ethnography: What immersion contributes to the study of power (pp. 1–22). University of Chicago Press.
15.
SchatzE. (2017). Disciplines that forget: Political science and ethnography. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(1), 135–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096516002304
16.
Schwartz-SheaP., & YanowD. (2012). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. Routledge series on interpretive methods. Routledge.
17.
StuartF. (2018). Reflexivity: Introspection, positionality, and the self as research instrument—Toward a model of abductive reflexivity. In JerolmackC. & KhanS. R. (Eds.), Approaches to ethnography: Analysis and representation in participant observation. Oxford University Press.
18.
WeberR. (2004). Editor’s comments: The rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism—A personal view. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), iii–xii. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148621
19.
WedeenL. (2009). Ethnography as interpretive exercise. In SchatzE. (Ed.), Political ethnography: What immersion contributes to the study of power (pp. 75–93). University of Chicago Press.
20.
WedeenL. (2010). Reflections on ethnographic work in political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 13(1), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.052706.123951
21.
WilsonW. J., & ChaddhaA. (2009). The role of theory in ethnographic research. Ethnography, 10(4), 549–564. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24048136
