DOUG! it isn't supposed to be and he doesn't claim it to be. please don't criticize people on ethnographical methods if you don't understand how it works and only know statoid econodrone methods or something. see, m. burawoy's discussions about ethnography and different ways of using them to say something about society. we don't study individuals!
worse! he isn't supposed to have a representative sample. it's an ethnography and his sample isn't supposed to random or representative.
but, i already complained to you about how shoddy YOUR review of him was when you wrote it.
by reinforcing this crap about statistically rep samples you are reinforcing positivist methodology crap that is aligned with some of the worst social engineering crud around and you give no room for people like me and ESPECIALLY feminists who've used ethography and gotten denied jobs because they weren't "number crunching" and other nonsense.
>>Technically, Wolfe's Middle Class Morality Project is a joke. His 200
>>respondents are meant to stand for about 50 million suburban households;
>>his 24 black respondents get to speak for the entire "black middle
>>class." He scores the interviews impressionistically; there's no way to
>>control for, or even second-guess, his bias in drafting the questions or
>>inventing the categories. But even if his picture of "middle-class"
>>suburbia were accurate, it's a stretch to call that representative of the
>>way a mythic unitary "America" thinks. Suburbanites are less than half
>>the U.S. population, and affluent suburbanites of Wolfe's sort are still
>>less. Just 1.5% of his sample has an income under $15,000, compared with
>>almost 10% of the U.S. population; people with incomes between $15,000
>>and $50,000 are greatly underrepresented, and those with incomes over
>>$50,000, well under half the population, are two-thirds of his sample.
>>Over three-quarters are married, compared with just over half of U.S.
>>adults, and just 1% appear to be gay.
>
>Doug