702 @ METHODS OF COLLECTING AND ANALYZING EMPIRICAL MATERIALS ‘Tillman-Healy, L. M. (1996). A secret lf in a culture of shinness: Reflecions on bods, food and bulimia. In C. lis 8A. P Bochner (as), Composing eabngraphy: Alternative forms ef qualitative wonting (pp. 76-108) Walnut Creek, CA: AlaMira. van Gelder, PJ 8¢ Kaplan, C.D, (1992). The finishing moment: Temporal and spatial fsx tures of sexual ineractons between street walkers and eae clients: Huoman Organization, 51, 253-268, Wales J. (1984). Proporsonate reason and its thee levels of inguly: Sracuring che ongo ing debate: Louuain Studies, 10, 30-40, ‘Walters, D. M, (1996). Cast among outcstes: lncerpeeting sexual orientation, rail, and gender identity in he Yeren Arab Republic. In. Lewin 8 WL. Leap (Es), Ou nthe eld: Reflections of lesbian and gay anthro olagist (pp. 58-68) Urbana: Unversity of Ulinois Prev, ‘Wax, M.L., 8 Cassel, (1979), Federal gular tions: Ethical issuer and social research Boul der, CO: Westview Werner, 0. 8¢Schoepfe, G. M. (1987). Sytem ‘atc fieldwork: Vol I: Foundations of eho. ‘apy and interviewing, Newbury Psk, CA Sage ‘Weston, K, (1996), Requiem for a street fghtes In E. Lewin 8 WL: Leap (Eds) Out ithe fied: Reflections of lesbian and gy anthro: polagics (pp. 274.286). Urbana: University of linis Press. Whyte, W.F. (1959) Sree comer society: The socal structure ofa Tala slum Qn ed) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Willams, WL. (1996), Being gay and doing fieldwork. In E. Lewin & W.L. Leap (Eds). ‘Out inthe il: Reflections of lesbian and gy ‘anthropologists (pp. 70-85). Urban: Univer Sity of tino Press. ‘Willon, M. (1995). Perspective and difference: Sexualzation, the fel and the ethnogra. her. In D, Kalck 8M. Wilson (Eds), Ta boo Sex, identity and erotic subjectivity in “anthropological fieldwork ‘pp, 251-275). London: Routledge, Wolcott, H. (1995). Theat of fldwork. Wa nut Creek, CA: AlaMiea, ‘Wolf, D.L (1996), Suating feminsdilemmas in eldwork. ID. Wolf (Ed), Feminist dh lemmas in fieldwork (pp. 1-35). Boulder, CO: Weswiew: ‘Wo M.A. (1992). A thrice tata: Femina, postmodersim, and ethnographic respons ‘hry. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Pres. Wolf, M.A. (1996), Afterword: Musings from ‘an old gray wolt. nD. L. Wolf (Ed), Feminist dilemmas in fiedwor (pp. 215-222), Boul ‘der, COs Wesview 26 THE INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIAL CULTURE ‘written rexs and arifacrs Sach evidence, sanlik te spoken word, endures physically and thus canbe separated aross space an ime rom das author, producer, or ser. Material races thas often have to be imerpeeted without dhe benefir of indigenous commentary. There i of ten no posuibility of imeraction with spoken ‘emic “insider” as opposed to etic “outsider” per spective. Even when such ineracton is poss ble actors often scem curiously inarieure abou the easons they des in particular ways, ‘chootepasticalar ponery designs, or discard -ingin particular locations. Mareial trace and fesidues cus pose special problems for quali tive rosea, The main disciplines chat have tried to develop appropriate theory and method are story, history archaeology anthropol gy, sociology, cognitive psychology, rechnol- ‘ogy, and modern aerial culture stadis, and it 'seom this cangeof disciplines thar my account is drawn, his ehapte is concerned with the intr pretation of mute evidence—that swith ‘@ Written Documents and Records Lincoln and Guba (1985, p. 277) distinguish documents and records on the basi of whether the ext wae prepared to atest fo some formal teansaction, Ths records inelade marrage ce ricares, diving Heenses, building, comeacts and banking saemens. Documents, on the other hand, are prepared for personal ether thar official reasonsand inlnde dares, memos, lentes, eld notes, and son. In fact, the ro terms are often used interchangeably although the dsinetion san important one ai hs some parallels with the dissnction berween writing and speech, to be dscused below. Documents, closer eo speech, require more contextualized Iimerpretation, Records on the other hand, may Ihave Inal ues that Become very isan from oF ficially sanctioned meanings. Document in volve a personal technology, and records 4 fall sate technology of power. The distinction ‘i ko relevant for qualitative research, in that 703704 @ METHODS OF COLLECTING AND ANALYZING EMPIRICAL. MATERIALS The Interpretation of Documents and Material Culture @ 705 researchers may often be able £0 get acces to documents, whereas acces f recordsmay bee stricted by laws eeparding privacy, confident sly and anonymity. Despite the uty of he distinction beeween docoments and records, my concer here is ‘mote the problems of inerpretaion of writen texts ofall kinds. Suc Yes ae of importance for qualitative research because, in genera) terms acess canbe easy and Fow cost, because the information provided may differ from and ray not be available in spoken form, and be- cause texts endo and thus give historical sieht Tehasofeenbeenasumed,forexample, inthe archaeology of historical periods, tae writen texts provide a “ver” indication of original meanings than do other types of evidence (tbe considered below), Indeed, Western socials ‘ence has long privileged the spoken over the vwritten and the Weiten over the sonverbal (Derrida, 1978), Somehow ir is assumed that words gets loser to minds. Buras Desi has Shown, meaning does not reside in 2 ext but it the writing and reading oft, Ashe extieread in dlferent contexts ti given new meanings, ‘often contradictory and always socially embed.