Ethnography: Art or Science?
Some thoughts on “Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes”
On page twenty-one the authors discuss the idea of whether an ethnographer should identify himself as a researcher, or if it is permissible to hide one's identity from your subjects. Although it may make an ethnographer's research more authentic, there are some ethical problems with not disclosing one's motivations to the people you interact with. Most fundamentally, in Kantian parlance, this is treating people as a means to an end, rather than an end in themselves. While in extreme circumstances one might argue that the “end justifies the means,” these cases of “extreme ethnography” are rare to say the least. Even if the ethnographer is very careful to avoid causing any harm to his subjects, without full disclosure of his intentions, the chance that he is unwittingly causing harm to his subjects remains.There are instances where social experiments are conducted on people unknowingly. These are particularly common in psychology. The difference between these psychological experiments and ethnographic research, however, is that in psychological experiments people are studied in artificial situations that are not connected with their work, family or other aspects of their “real lives” (if you will permit the term). In ethnographic studies, researchers intend to publish in-depth details about peoples lives. It seems wholly unethical to go about this without inform those whom you are studying.
A second interesting point brought up by the authors is whether to write in the first or third person perspective (p. 53-60). There are undoubtedly pros and cons to each decision. This decision also may also have to be based on what type of situation the ethnographer is describing. For example, if an ethnographer were simply observing an event, then the third person perspective may be best; however, if the ethnographer is participating in the activity he is describing, then it seems likely that a first person account would be preferable.
A third and more general issue that this book raises in my mind concerns the nature of ethnography itself. Is ethnography an art or a science? If it is truly a science, then this book strikes me as a particularly useful technical manual that covers a wide variety of techniques. If ethnography is really more of an art, however, perhaps a manual of this nature is not all that helpful. For example, while technical knowledge is undoubtedly integral for physicists, it may be less so for painters. Although a certain basis of technical skill is required to be an accomplished painter (with perhaps the exception of abstract impressionists), no manual will on its own make anyone a great painter. How true is this with ethnography as well? Is it the case of needing to possess innate talents of observation and description, or can someone learn all they need from seminars and textbooks?
posted by Eddy at 8:37 PM
6 Comments:
In response to:
“If ethnography is really more of an art, however, perhaps a manual of this nature is not all that helpful. For example, while technical knowledge is undoubtedly integral for physicists, it may be less so for painters.”
Sorry Eddy, but I would like to respectfully disagree. I found the fact that this book was willing to venture some ideas as to how to tackle the “art” side of research very refreshing.
First off, I would venture that even the most abstract impressionists (at least those worth their salt) have studied perspective, color theory, and other text-book relevant topics. By contrast, I find it disheartening that while the format of the main output produced by most academics is writing, very little attention is devoted to writing techniques. I think this is one area where the ethnographic tradition may have a lot to contribute, even to scholars who take different methodological approaches.
First, there is the purely aesthetic argument for good writing: I’d rather not read something that puts me to sleep. But this is closely related to a more academically “legitimate” argument: that how we write impacts what we say. The choices we make in terms of what we choose to highlight and which parts of our writing we make stick in people’s minds (for example by supporting a point with narrative, dialogue, or examples) have a real impact on what our work ends up meaning once its out in the world.
Sorry for the ultra-positivist example, but think back to the difference between reading KKV and reading Geddes. KKV (1) put me to sleep, and (2) failed to capture my imagination. By contrast, whereas Geddes advocates very similar research methods and methodologies, her willingness to relate to the reader personally, use anecdotes, and provide real examples of how her favored research methods cast new light on old conclusions makes the book not only much more enjoyable to read, but also more convincing.
On page 68, Emerson et al. write that, “An ethnographer committed to an “objective” writing style presented in the passive voice and with neutral, colorless working will often overlook human agency and will more likely skip over the more messy (and often most interesting) details of human experience.” Perhaps this is not only true of the individual human experience, but also of the human experience as aggregated at the group, state, or international level – the more traditional subjects of international relations scholarship.
[one quick thing - if you want to do experiments on people without them knowing, you need a special IRB permission]
I have no idea how many times I yelled "Go, get an MFA" when I was reading this book.
Based on our discussions last week, my impression is the stress on writing in ethnography is practically because writing is the main 'rhetorical' tool in the process. You have no quantitative data, you 'barely' have a theoretical framework (I'm sorry but Emerson showed theoretical guidance pretty much as optional), your data are your interpretations of your observations (I don't think I need more possessive pronouns to make my point here); so you better write well. You have to have 'something' to be convincing.
If my two options are science and art for ethnography, I have to say I find it very difficult to say science. I mean, I'm pretty sure if we compare the content of Emerson's book, with a creative writing book, and a qualitative research methods book; it will have more in common with the former..
I agree with Kate in one point though. We are being trained to be scholars. What does a scholar do? Well, a scholar does research, writes, and teaches. Wait, we are never trained to write or to teach! We learn how to write/teach when we have to. We might need some 'technical' manuals to facilitate the writing and reading processes in a scholar's life (definitely not to facilitate research).
On the topic of ethnography being an art or a science, and its teach-ability: It does strike me that the ethnographic approach requires a good deal of talent, creativity, insight, judgment, and pizazz and other personal qualities beeyond sheer intelligence and rigorous training. There are ethnographers and there are ethnographers. When I read Geertz, I think, "Ethnography is great!" But then I read other ho-hum ethnographers and wonder if it was really Geertz that I liked.
There is a key quality essential for being an ethnographer which we haven't talked about yet, and that is the ability to build rapport with strangers. This is no easy task - you have to make small talk, you have to be able to pull off asking dumb questions without loosing the respect of your hosts, and you have to pick up on a lot of small social cues. A lot of people just don't have the personality to be ethnographers.
First, regarding abstract impressionist art...I propose a new universal standard: the Edward Lucas Standard. If Edward Lucas (being myself) can reproduce your piece of visual art then it is not art...Example: "White Canvas on White Wall" as displayed at the Tate Modern in London in 2007. Guess what...I can do that! So, sorry not art! My basis for this is having spent 10 years (K-G9) at a Fine Arts school I can still barely draw a stick-man without, inadvertently, making it looking obscene. This also proves, at least in my opinion, that you cannot really teach someone to be an artist. Certainly there are things that can be learned that prove useful to an artist...vocabulary, grammar, colour theory, etc...but knowing these things does not make you an artist.
This is different for scientists. You actually learn to be a scientist from instruction and manuals. The same cannot be said for an art, which I suspect includes ethnography.
Yes, but Eddy would you have *thought* to put up a plain white canvas, give it some stupid title, and collect beaucoup d'argent for your ingenuity?
Probably not. So perhaps the talent lies in the skill to promote X as art and have that decision validated by big fancy museums like the Tate....
Just saying...
So following deRaismes, the conclusion I’m drawing from this conversation is: that the “art” of ethnography to have *thought* up the idea that watching 10 mechanics fix copiers for a year, counts under the title of “science,” and collecting beaucoup d'argent (or at least a tenure track gig) for your ingenuity.
Perhaps I’m becoming cynical.
Post a Comment
<< Home