Description: Contextualising and characterising qualitative dataAccording to (Lofland 1971) analytical enquiry is made up of three aspects: the character of social phenomena and the forms and varieties it displays; the causes of social phenomena and the forms and varieties it displays; and the consequences of social phenomena and the forms and varieties it displays. He suggests that the first is qualitative and the second and third are quantitative aspects. There are, of course examples of qualitative research frameworks that encompass all three, eg: grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967) but fundamentally qualitative research is the first, 'seeing into the life of things' (Woods 1996) towards a spiral of understanding (Lacey 1976). It is a quest for accuracy and depth of understanding and ways of conveying this to others that keeps faith with accuracy and depth (Woods 1996). If there were to be a linear model of analysis Woods (1986) suggests speculative analysis-classification-conceptualisation-models-typologies and theory. However, Wolcott (Wolcott 1995) asserts that conceptual frameworks are sufficient and theorising is not necessary. To him ethnography is a picture of a way of life of some interacting human group and to Woods (Woods 1986) it is the faithfulness to culture as it is found and the description through conceptualisation of general and essential characteristics of interactions that are paramount. According to Delamont and Hamilton (1976) the anthropological research tradition in the UK from - which ethnography derives - involves the collection of research data that is relatively unsystematic and open ended, a holistic frame that accepts complex scenes and begins with a broad perspective and that reduces breadth of enquiry to give more attention to emerging issues. The analysis can develop new fertile descriptive languages (ibid.). Lofland (1971) goes on to suggest that the contexts for observations in qualitative research are the acts/activities - meanings - participations - relationships and settings and the analysis of these is the characterisation of the forms they assume and the varieties they display. However, he still asserts that the problem is not how can we explain what is happening but how can we describe what is happening.A focus on the contexts, in which interactions within social settings occur, and a characterisation of those contexts is a fundamental basis for qualitative research but also a perquisite for a grounded theory approach if this is the objective of a research project. This paper will unpack some of the contextual aspects of qualitative fieldwork, an activity essential for the 'thick description' (Geertz 1973) we desire. These contexts can be illuminated by such activities as asking questions - who, when, where, what, how , how much, why (Strauss and Corbin 1990), through the importation of small theories - hypothesis, ideas, assumptions, hunches and notions (Wolcott 1995) - as sensitizing theories (Strauss and Corbin 1990), through examining intentions - often left out in observational only research - and by locating the studied phenomena in its social milieu (Mills 1959), and particularly for interactionist ethnographers, to investigate the process and flux (Woods 1996) The second major qualitative action is conceptualising these contexts using the researcher's ethnographic and sociological imagination (Atkinson 1990; Mills 1959), to involve the personal qualities of the researcher, to discern the subtleties of meaning of data, to create insights, to give meaning to the data, to develop the capacity to understand. All this is done conceptually rather than in concrete terms (Glaser and Strauss).. Methodology: The paper will draw on a range of qualitative and ethnographic research to exemplify different ways that analysis can be carried out through contextualisation and conceptualisation Conclusions: The paper will draw on a range of qualitative and ethnographic research to exemplify different ways that analysis can be carried out through contextualisation and conceptualisation to avoid the sceptics fear (Woods 1986) that we will be left with endless description and a sequence of plausible stories (Eldridge 1980)