English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article explores the question of validity of ethnographic findings in anthropology in general and business anthropology in particular. The main argument is that our ethnographic work is as methodologically valid as the production by human scientists of other disciplines. Unlike psychologists, however, anthropologists are yet to make a public claim to meaning (one outside the discipline) that renders our uses of methodology equally clear and open to public scrutiny. Business anthropology, hypothetically, could be a field marked by greater methodological accountability. Thematic networks could be the instrument used to start imagining forms of representing validity inside the discipline and as an instrument for future branding of business anthropology research.

Focused Ethnography Through Thematic Networks: Defining Validity in Business Anthropology Research