Demystifying ethnographic fieldnotes

Overall, I found Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes to be a helpful contribution to our growing toolbox of methodology literature. The book fills an apparent void by going “behind the scenes” of completed ethnographies (like Orr and Burawoy et al.), and even going beyond the usual “how-to” focus of moving from fieldnotes to ethnography. Indeed, though Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw include a (helpful) discussion of this final step, the emphasis of the book is clearly on the specific exercise of writing fieldnotes.

To be sure, as stated on page xii, the goal of the book is to “demystify writing fieldnotes, giving explicit attention to the processes of transforming observation and experience into inspectable texts.” In doing so, the authors aim to provide practical guidance and also to encourage reflection on the ontology of ethnography by examining its process (Plug: see Avi’s blog for more on this topic!). For me, the authors do a good job of “demystifying” fieldnotes, of which I knew very little before the reading. They accomplish this goal through the book’s structure, discussion of specific methods, and useful framing of ethnography.

First, the structure of the book makes the information conveyed clear and easy to understand. Despite having three authors, the book flows well and is organized in clear sections and sub-sections. Indeed, the insight of multiple authors for a book like this is actually helpful for providing balanced discussions of the ideas, and for providing a diverse selection of examples. To be sure, the regular inclusion of real examples in general, and comparative examples in particular, is especially useful for determining strengths and weaknesses of different attempts and for identifying varied approaches to the same task.

Emerson et al’s breakdown of specific methods is also helpful for indicating that writing fieldnotes is not just a single step, but an entire process in itself. I found the first section on “jotting” to be less instructive than later chapters, with the authors basically concluding that “whatever works for you” is fine at this stage. While I recognize the need to accommodate diverse approaches at this initial point in ethnographic research, I was at first worried that the entire book would fit the ethnographic stereotype of concluding that everything is contextual. I thus found the chapters on writing up fieldnotes, and especially the chapter on coding, to be more useful in describing specific strategies and skills.

In terms of Emerson et al’s “framing,” I found the interactionist, interpretive understanding of ethnography discussed in the book to be helpful. As stated on page xii, this approach “derives from the traditions of symbolic interaction and ethnomethodology,” allowing for an appreciation of reflexivity, which is a unique aspect of ethnography: “Reflexivity involves the recognition that an account of reality does not simply mirror but rather creates or constitutes as real in the first place whatever it describes” (213). This approach is useful in several ways, especially when considering “ethical dilemmas” that ethnographers might face. As Emerson et al discuss in the conclusion, the interactive approach allows the ethnographer to be seen and heard in the ethnography, which clearly identifies the presence of the ethnographer and thus directly recognizes personal perspectives and biases. Secondly, the interactive method is well suited to represent members’ meanings and help ethnographers avoid imposing exogenous meanings, as discussed in chapter five.

Emerson et al neglect to discuss some of the shortcomings of this interactive approach, ie, it may be more difficult to link specific contextual observations to broader themes or communities, or it may be difficult to rely on this method in communities in which interactions are limited. However, such a discussion is not really necessary for this book, as the approach adopted was recognized as one of many, simply used to provide a framework for the content. Likewise, while reading the book, I was hoping for a more nuanced discussion of the ethical questions faced by ethnographers (such as the tension between being a participant v. observer; commitment to the community v. the academy; sensitivity to privacy v. recording valuable observations, etc.), yet again, such questions are beyond the scope of this book. For me, the book was successful in meeting its goal of “demystifying” ethnographic fieldnotes, and had the added benefit for this reader of demystifying the methodology of ethnography in general.