Framing fieldwork
Last term, we were inundated with positivist and nomothetic studies involved in framing a puzzle, formulating a hypothesis, testing said hypothesis, etc., in a certain linear trajectory (with some room for back steps). However, according to Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw, an ethnography formulates its puzzle/hypothesis after the data has been collected, and after careful coding/analyzing of fieldnotes. As Efe mentioned in class this past week, somehow such a reversal feels wrong -- like cheating or simply bad science. So what are the merits of this ethnographic approach?
It strikes me that whether one chooses ethnography as one's methodology largely depends on what type of research and knowledge that person wants to create. While the examples in Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes seem to be largely anthropological or sociological as opposed to political, the broad goals of these scholars have been to both describe/present a certain culture/episode to a larger audience, as well as to discover/create more general themes in these particular experiences that might transcend the specific circumstances and promote greater understanding of what and how we perceive events around us. For instance, while Fretz's experiences with the Chokwe tribe are specific, her approach to living with and studying a completely foreign society and language can inform others who find themselves in alien territory (speaking perhaps both metaphysically as well as literally). Her discussion of the power dynamics in certain storytelling circles (specifically: the village chief likes to gender who tells stories, though this is not standard Chokwe practice) shows that one's first and second impressions might not always be correct, and a good ethnographer must remain open to other hidden agendas.
On the other hand, if one were to start out with a specific puzzle about why something happened the way it did, ethnography might not be the only way to go.
I was also overwhelmed with the obscene amount of work necessary to produce quality fieldnotes. I find it difficult to even imagine having that much to say (one example given in the book was 50 pages of notes for a 3-minute conversation!), much less then going back through the notes a second, third, and maybe even fourth time to code them, add memos, and rearrange data episodes. This effort seems not only exhausting, but also extremely difficult -- adding to Eddy's question of whether ethnography is art or science. Given this workload, I think I would have to say it must be both. Perhaps the art and science of ethnography is being able to produce knowledge that is actually worth knowing -- both for its specific content as well as its more broad (but not necessarily universal) applicability.
Finally, did anyone else notice that these authors changed the gender of the pronoun (he/she) all the time? I wonder if they did this on purpose to insinuate that ethnographers are both men and women, that the term 'ethnographer' is gender-neutral? Or, they just have a really bad editor...
posted by adabunny at 11:43 PM
5 Comments:
[from deRaismes again:] Reflecting over the last few weeks about methodology, I have realized that I feel deeply ambivalent about any one process. I firmly believe that the embedded cultural factor is necessary when writing about any area not your own. Even accepting that our perceptions and personalities will always color how we view the world, I cannot imagine that trying to find causal mechanisms (if doing a neo-positivist study) could possibly go BETTER without experiencing the actual thing of which one writes. Of course, this becomes impossible in Large-N studies, and I guess is less relevant for certain types of questions/puzzles, but still...
At the same time, the pure ethnographic process described in Emerson et al's book leaves me yearning for the more concrete causal arrow/answer to specific puzzle. Maybe because it is more straightforward and thus appears to be easier?? No idea.
All I know is that if the goal is to produce new knowledge, I want to make damn sure I FEEL confident that I know what I am talking about. For me, that means experiencing it first hand...
...I remain confused.
Just one quick thing (I saw my name :) ).
Emerson also talks about a similar thing (around page 111). He discusses how (not) to impose exogenous meanings. He proposes a priori theoretical categories as an option. Now, I have a background in communication and we love to do content analysis. Most of the time, you do not have a theory to help you with categories - so you end up doing grounded theory analysis. In other words, you will use other communication theories to guide your research, research question, and sampling. Then you go into your data and start coding - with the ultimate aim of coming with categories.
You do not write a nice story, decorated with personal observations, dialogues, and cartoons (another chapter for the book - including 'funnies' in your academic writing).
DeRaismes wrote, "the broad goals of these [ethnographic] scholars have been to both describe/present a certain culture/episode to a larger audience, as well as to discover/create more general themes in these particular experiences that might transcend the specific circumstances..." I think that's very well put.
I am still struggling with Efe's starkly-worded comment in class about ethnography not having much worth if it can't produce something that generalizes beyond a specific, local situation. Like him, I see general propositions about human (political, social, etc.) behavior as useful. Emerson et al., however, do seek to contribute to THEORY; they write eloquently of the "dialectical interplay between theory and data" (p. 167), in a section devoted to "Creating Theory from Fieldnotes." Yet it is unclear to me what kind of "theory" is produced. The authors argue for analyzing the data with questions that "give priority to *processes* rather than to 'causes' or internal psychological 'motives.'... we view open coding as a means for developing interpretations or analytic themes rather than causal explanations" (pp. 146-47).
What, then, is the value of these interpretive or analytic theories, other than to speak vaguely to what it means to be human? (Doesn't good fiction do that too?) I have seen interesting theory about the specific variables along which cultures differ (and, implicitly, ways they don't); these are informed by ethnography but are not its main purpose, I don't think. I enjoy when ethnographies call into doubt our existing theories or generalizations, but yet I don't think that's necessarily the main goal either. In my gut and based on my experience, I feel ethnography is worthwhile, but I am at a loss to articulate its contribution.
Like Suzanne, I am also finding it difficult to articulate the contribution of ethnography to social science. I know it’s there but when trying to find the words that can persuade someone about its merits, I am finding that it is tough going. I am not sure if it is because maybe I’ve drunk the KKV Kool-Aid and yearn for my nice generalizable theories where X → Y. I agree with deRaismes that part of the explanation can be due to the fact that large-N, causal theories are relatively tidy – it gets rid of the annoying, fascinating mess that is human beings.
However I do believe that there are some questions that ethnography can answer that generalizable theories cannot. But I suppose the real issue is whether the questions that ethnography can answer are worth answering in the first place. Maybe I can’t use a large-N statistical analysis to understand how sorcery plays an important role in Congolese politics but does it even matter? I think it does, particularly in this example, as it points out the problems of theories that assume that people are rational and also that what we may consider irrational is another person’s piece of common sense.
I was also intrigued about someone’s comment in class about the policy implications of ethnography. Perhaps ethnography cannot lead to policy recommendations – which I am not entirely sure about – but perhaps it can give greater insight into how those policies should be tweaked or reformulated. Maybe it is not only a theory-building tool but also a policy-testing tool?
Yes--exactly! What IS the value of ethnography? I have been trying to figure this out for three weeks now.
With Orr's book, I started to convince myself that ethnography's value is in how it is used. ProfPTJ's stressing to us that this book is passed around in circles of mechanics and is used to ameliorate tensions between managers and employees allowed my brain to rest briefly.
But then the next week came. And frankly, the use of each of the discussed ethnographies did not seem to be important any longer. Instead we discussed that ethnographies were meant to speak on behalf of individuals that would not otherwise have a voice and translate stories into a language that the ethnography's audience could understand. We discussed ethnographies explaining political phenomenon from a new perspective, testing different existing theories.
And finally, we read the practical book on how to do an ethnography, and I walked away with the sense that an ethnography can simply tell us a whole lot about not much at all.
My question about what we can learn about ethnography is still lingering, and writing fieldnotes has only served to increase my concern. It all seems highly subjective and biased.
(Ok, I can agree that all research is highly subjective and biased.)
So I'm still chewing on this.
Post a Comment
<< Home