an instructive, if hardly surprising, clash of paradigms; more surprising, perhaps, is that the natural scientists should have taken such an interest in sociological work-an interest for which we are surely grateful. Feminism remains associated with qualitative method, which may have something to do with the prominence of qualitative areas in work on methods, even though women have not done most of that; quantitative sociology is regarded as a specialty rather than taken for granted. Perhaps no one book can be singled out, but Paul Atkinson and Martyn Hammersley have, jointly and separately (e.g., Hammersley and Atkinson 1995; Hammersley 1992), made a major contribution to this field, ensuring that the term ethnography is now more frequently used than participant observation. Many of those attracted to such work have an ideological commitment to that style and do not see it as simply one tool in the toolkit. However, a certain cynicism about the relationship to general stances, theoretical or methodological, may be justified for British sociology (as it is for sociology in other countries). Much solid empirical work continues, even if that is not widely regarded as where the action is. (A new British Sociological Association study group on food has been very successful, perhaps reflecting the growing national preoccupation with recipes and with eating out as a leisure activity.) Those who make and discuss the general statements are often not the same people who do the work that would put them into practice in particular cases and, indeed, the fragmentation we refer to ensures that those working in a substantive field may not even be aware of the controversies in another, or in general theory or method. The current state of British sociology cannot be summarized by referring to a few books on whose importance there exists a consensus. With regret, therefore, we confess that we have not written a piece that altogether fulfills the editor's brief and excuse our failure on the grounds that no one could have done so.