Sociological theorists' recent critique of foundationalism, the notion that
observers can accurately represent a single, objective reality, has led to
calls for sociology to abandon its claim to epistemic privilege. A related
debate has ensued among qualitative sociologists over ethnography's claim
to produce objective, authoritative accounts of field realities. This debat
e over "the crisis of representation" has apparently reached an epistemolog
ical impasse, as both "modernist" and "postmodernist" participants draw on
a conceptual dichotomy inherited from correspondence models of science. The
impasse is ethical as well, as participants "talk past one another" as the
y debate the appropriate responsibilities of sociologists. A pragmatist sol
ution to this dilemma has been offered, but gives insufficient attention to
the politics that shape the criteria to be used in judging the validity of
accounts in local contexts. Drawing upon "modernist" discussions of field
methods and an empirical case of "studying up" in Mondragon, Spain, this pa
per argues that a more politically attentive pragmatism could contribute to
research practice that is both epistemologically and empirically defensibl
e.