This article presents the author's response to Nicola Rollock's critique on the author's paper in which the author has argued that ethnographic data should be more widely used in psychology (Woods 2005, 2007b). Rollock argues that the paper neglects Zak's level of educational achievement, and fails to critically interrogate his teachers' actions towards him. In particular, she argues that these aspects should be examined with reference to Zak being a Black African boy. In support of this argument, she draws on literature showing that on average, children of his ethnicity and gender achieve less academically than the average White British child, and are framed as problematic within dominant school practices (e.g. DfES 2006; Youdell 2003, cited in Rollock 2008). Here, the author discusses three issues arising from Rollock's critique. Firstly, she argues that because her research question differed from the one that Rollock asks, she did not collect the kinds of data that would enable her to make the argument that Rollock suggests. Secondly, Rollock seems to be arguing that ethnicity, social class and gender are critical considerations in all social science research. The author questions whether this is a reasonable expectation. Thirdly, she considers how to link her analysis of children's responses to punishment with Rollock's argument that teachers read children's behaviour through a lens of ethnicity, social class and gender. (Contains 1 note.)