I'm designing my doctoral dissertation in sociology, and I'm grappling with the choice of social science research methods for a study on community resilience after a natural disaster. My initial plan was a mixed-methods approach, combining a quantitative survey with qualitative interviews, but my committee is concerned about the feasibility and depth I can achieve within my timeframe. I'm now reconsidering a purely ethnographic case study, but I worry about generalizability. I'd appreciate insights from anyone who has navigated similar methodological trade-offs in their own fieldwork.
One practical route is a bounded, in-depth ethnography with theoretical generalization in mind. Pick one disaster-impacted locale and go deep, but deliberately include 2–3 embedded subcases (e.g., different neighborhoods, faith groups, or municipal actors) to surface variation in resilience processes. Use thick description to let readers judge transferability, and foreground the mechanisms you identify (networks, everyday routines, institutions) rather than just outcomes. You can still publish a robust theoretical contribution even if the sample isn't large.
Two-site or three-site ethnography can strike a balance between depth and some breadth. If you can choose sites that differ on a couple dimensions (urban vs rural, different governance structures), you can compare patterns while keeping fieldwork manageable.
Be explicit about limits and use triangulation: interviews, participant observation, document analysis, and maybe some informal focus groups. Even if not using a full mixed-methods design, triangulation strengthens credibility.
Ethical and relational aspects: in disaster contexts, relationships with communities and responders are fragile; plan for ongoing consent, feedback, and reciprocity. Consider a community advisory board or regular debriefs with participants to steer interpretation.
Theory-first planning helps: decide which resilience concepts you want to test (e.g., social capital, place attachment, governance). Then structure data collection around those concepts so you can build theory, not just a descriptive case.
Time management advice: predefine fieldwork time blocks, do a pilot phase, and be upfront with committee about how you’ll handle generalizability. Also consider a 'design appendix' that outlines how you’ll translate local findings into broader concepts.