Ethnographing
(UGH. Blogger decided not to publish this last night. -- a )
Julie's notes below offer a great overview of the mechanics of Emerson, et al.'s process. But Tram's critique, that the authors leave unresolved the tension between the ethnographer's role as rapporteur and participant, is also illuminating. Building on this critique, it seems to me that the process described in the book is deliberately elliptical: ethnography, as perceived by these authors, is necessarily a process built on this tension.
Ethnography, here, is — rather than the output function reported in the publishable analysis — the act of writing built on a repeated procecss of exit and reentry. Initial observations are recorded as jottings, reevaluated and fleshed out as fieldnotes, spun into stories, examined for thematic linkages, and parsed into what we usually term "ethnography." Yet, though the authors use the term, I think it more a shorthand for their whole process; their "ethnographic texts" makes more sense here.
The term itself captures much of this, I think. Ethnography is not simply storytelling. Differentiating the research method from any other form of aggregation of detail is the necessity of the writing. It is the act of putting nations on paper, not merely the final product of such an endeavor.
Julie's notes below offer a great overview of the mechanics of Emerson, et al.'s process. But Tram's critique, that the authors leave unresolved the tension between the ethnographer's role as rapporteur and participant, is also illuminating. Building on this critique, it seems to me that the process described in the book is deliberately elliptical: ethnography, as perceived by these authors, is necessarily a process built on this tension.
Ethnography, here, is — rather than the output function reported in the publishable analysis — the act of writing built on a repeated procecss of exit and reentry. Initial observations are recorded as jottings, reevaluated and fleshed out as fieldnotes, spun into stories, examined for thematic linkages, and parsed into what we usually term "ethnography." Yet, though the authors use the term, I think it more a shorthand for their whole process; their "ethnographic texts" makes more sense here.
The term itself captures much of this, I think. Ethnography is not simply storytelling. Differentiating the research method from any other form of aggregation of detail is the necessity of the writing. It is the act of putting nations on paper, not merely the final product of such an endeavor.
posted by Anonymous at 11:44 PM
3 Comments:
As Avi states, ethnography is not "just" storytelling, but storytelling is a major part of it. I was struck as I read this book about how to do good ethnography- its admonitions to show not tell (32), to include interesting dialogue and detail that help the story along or provide insight as opposed to just blither, etc.- really apply to all good writing, be it journalism, autobiography or fiction. And I think storytelling is a big, important part of ethnography. It's where ethnography begins. The difference, it seems, is in what you do with these stories.
Therefore, I think our discussions about whether ethnography is any different from other forms of immersion writing has two dimensions. First, the fimension of storytelling. This is common to many forms of writing. The second dimension, the production and analysis or field notes, is what distinguishes it from other forms of writing. As the authors lay out their advice for coding, creating typologies, seeking to understand (multiple) indegenous meanings and meaning creation, it becomes clear that this is a step beyond journalism or autobiograhy.
Furthermore, unlike much of journalism, although not the really good stuf, ethnogrpahy is inductive. It seeks to find meaning from the dialogue and quotes in ones notes, rather than finding the quote to match your point. Much of journalism does this- oh, now we need the official's quote, now we need the opposition's quote. But the best journalists, and the best stories and insights, come out of a similarly inductive process. Robert Pear, one of the greatest New York Times journalists, told me that he often just talks to his sources about stuf- their work, what they think about, what they think is important- and in this way discovers stories he might never have thought about. This is the same approach ethnographers use, but to a far greater extent.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
No, ethnography is clearly not just storytelling. While this book is more of a “how-to manual” on writing field notes, I couldn’t help reflecting on my dark past as an Asylum Case Officer, and how my previous occupation was constantly “misunderstood” by those on the outside.
It occurred to me that of all the “objective” studies that have been carried out on the topic of asylum issues in Sweden, none of them seem to capture the “reality” as I lived it, hence the constant feeling of being misunderstood. But an ethnographic approach would fill that void.
See, while the hottest political issues in the U.S. may be things such as abortion or gay marriage, in Sweden, nobody cares about those things (we were very happy for Jonas and Mark, two Swedish TV-personalities, when they had their baby).
Instead, one of the most inflamed debates is concerned with the way the authorities treat asylum seekers. I, as an Asylum Case Officer, was constantly battling the media, who would seriously depict me as an “executioner” or a “heartless monster” (these are depictions from actual articles in Swedish newspapers by the way).
Personally, I thought I was incredibly humane in my interactions with those who came to me. That I (as a true Weberian bureaucrat) had to send approximately 80 percent of them back to a country where life was difficult, was another issue. Of course, many studies have been made on the topic, both academic and journalistic, but none of them have used an ethnographic approach, as far as I know.
I imagine an ethnography carried out by someone like myself, with a background in the occupation, focused on the work of Asylum Case Officers, would represent a reality quite different from a reality represented by an ethnography carried out by, say, a former asylum seeker, focused on the process asylum seekers go through. These would, however, be two equally real realities and they would be immensely useful, to use a term that has come up during the class debates.
I know, I digress from the main topic this week, but after reading this book, I believe the debates in class would have been quite different for the past couple of weeks, had we read it previously (I’m sure PTJ will let us in on his rationale today).
On the issue of objectivity, for instance: “the researcher’s point of view and theoretical priorities are not simply pre-given; they are shaped and influenced by the relationships he forms with the people whose social worlds he is trying to understand.” (215) There is, in fact, a value in not being neutral; when the researcher is immersed in the social setting she is studying we gain knowledge of a kind otherwise hidden.
Post a Comment
<< Home