Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Books—unlike most articles—are reviewed publicly (for examples, see
Fetterman, 1986c, 1986d, 2002, and 2008).Although most reviewers try to give
an honest critique of the work (Janesick, 1986), a poor match between reviewer
andtextcanbedisastrous.Almostallreviewerslookforerrors,sinsofomission,
andconceptualflawsinatext.Somehavethewisdomtojudgea topic onitsown
merits; others judge it against an ideal but unrelated model (for additional dis-
cussion on this topic, as well as a case example, see Bank, 1986; Fetterman,
1986a).Althoughtheauthoristypicallynotinvitedtorespondtoareview,some
reviews take on the tone of a personal ad hominin attack and can be character-
ized as acrimonious and combative.The editor will invite the author to respond
to these kinds of reviews in the spirit of balance and fair play.These exchanges
can produce great insight, transcending the specific topic, and represent a real
contributiontothefield.Theycanalsodegenerateandproducemorenoisethan
light.(SeeStufflebeam,1995,andFetterman,1995;Scriven,1997,Patton,1997,
and Fetterman, 1997; Scriven, 2005, Patton, 2005, and Fetterman, 2005;
Fetterman &Wandersman, 2007, for lively academic exchanges of this nature.)
Insomecases,thepublisherselectsareviewerpreciselybecausehisorherview
of the topic is completely different from that of the author. Colleagues familiar
with the players learn how to interpret reviewer comments and can learn much
from this exercise.Although review comments must sometimes be taken with a
grainofsalt,thereviewprocess—withallitsfaults(ofwhichtherearemany
1
)—
appears to be the best system available at this time.
How widely topics circulate depends on the publisher. Some publishers have
highly integrated dissemination systems, including databases of professional
associationmembershiplists,classifiedaccordingtointerestandtopicarea.Such
systemsenablepublisherstoidentifytheirmarketandtargettheiradvertising.The
author has a direct interest in this process because the author of a topic typically
receives royalties. The publisher owns the copyright—to prevent competition
from that same author—and the author retains limited publication rights.
A topic is usually an ethnographer's least timely published effort. Some
ethnographies are written many years after the fieldwork. Once a publisher
accepts a manuscript, actual publication may take an additional year or two.
Exceptions do exist. Some publishers now request a camera-ready copy of the
author's manuscript to expedite the process. Given the typical lag between
acceptance and publication, however, authors are fortunate that most scholarly
ethnographic topics are timeless and have a long shelf life. (See Whyte's
Street
Corner Society
, 1993, for a classic example [originally published in 1955]; see
alsoLareau,1987,fordiscussionaboutthedelayinpublicationofWhyte'stext.)
All written ethnographic expressions share some common features.
Most important are thick description and verbatim quotations. Use of the
ethnographic present and an explicit statement of the role of the ethnographer
are also characteristic.
