I Think I Have a (Methodological) Split Personality

Annie poses the following question in her blog:

“Is an ‘epistemology that admits to ontological truth’ inconsistent with the world view that motivates an ethnographic approach to research? Allina-Pisano says no. Wedeen, for example, tends toward yes. What do we think?”

I for one am trying to diagnose my own split-personality disorder with respect to methodology. O Doctor of Philosophy, what is wrong with me? Why do I love both ethnography and statistical research?

I do not buy the view that only ethnography can study the world of the “subaltern” and the powerless. However, I have personally had several experiences where ethnography, or an ethnographic-like approach to looking at the world, exploded my comfortable ideas in an illuminating, even thrilling way:

· When I was studying at the American University in Cairo, I took a course by an American anthropologist on the “anthropology of development.” He took us on field trips to several USAID development projects that were put in place without adequate knowledge of cultural and other local realities. I have a vivid memory, for example, of a USAID-financed paved road in the desert. It was covered over by sand, only its edges peeking out. The local villagers had covered it over because camels, which are used for transportation in much of Egypt, found the black tarmac too hot and hard for their feet and would not walk on it.

· When I was studying conflict resolution in my Master’s program, I read a collection of studies—ranging between ethnographic and journalistic in nature—of actual prominent mediators in practice (Deborah Kolb and associates, When Talk Works: Profiles of Mediators). The vast range of mediation methods revealed in these studies was at sharp odds with the received wisdom on mediation methods proffered by how-to books found on beginning mediators’ shelves.

· A collection of ethnographies on different gender roles in different societies around the world (including small-scale, nonindustrialized cultures) demonstrated that gender roles do not simply fall on a spectrum from more sexist to more egalitarian. One tribe in Nigeria, for example, had two separate governments—one for men, one for women. None of the cultures was found to be “matriarchal” in the same manner that male-dominated cultures are patriarchal (there were female-headed societies, but the nature of their rule was not the same as in male-headed societies). In other words, my simple categories of “egalitarian” or “sexist,” or even “matriarchal,” turned out to be utterly inadequate to understand the range of different gender relations. (I forget the name of the book—sorry—it was borrowed.)

I love ethnography and what it can offer. However, I also love large-N statistical research, or even the smaller-N kind of research done in a similar epistemological vein (a la Barbara Geddes, Paradigms and Sand Castles). I do think that it is possible, to come up with some generalizations about human behavior--at least probabilistic ones. I rely on these in my professional practice—for a simple example, I have learned that people are more attached and committed to a plan or proposal which they have had a hand in developing. My professional experience has borne that out time and time again.

Yet I’m not quite ready simply to declare myself an ontological and epistemological comrade of Jessica Allina-Pisano in Schatz’ Political Ethnography. Ethnography has more to offer than just a more detailed, intimate look at a separate, observer-independent world. Of course social realities are shaped by those in it, and the ethnographer (or any observer) places himself or herself in it alongside those being observed. Of course multiple takes on the same set of events can have validity. My professional experience affirms this too, particularly when I am taking perspectives of different parties to a conflict. I have learned to become comfortable with the ambiguity inherent in many conflicts: two (or more) different people can have seemingly opposite views of what has happened and they can both be valid.

I guess I am just a case of split personality. Doctor of Philosophy, help me please!