Tool for the Purpose

Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power introduces the reader to a world of discussion over the impacts and importance of ethnography in social sciences and –as the title suggests-, specifically the study of power and how the immersion of researcher advances our understanding of the concept. Ethnography seems to be against all the core principles of (sarcastic air quotes) scientific research. The researcher writes from a personal perspective (uses “I” in his/her work), he/she spends time and interacts with the observed groups, the conclusions are usually personal interpretations etc. Yet, ethnography, or political ethnography is still a legitimate research method. We need to answer a couple of questions to understand why we still believe in the merits of this particular tool. My discussion of the book revolves around two main themes.

Firstly, I believe we should all answer one important question before we start our research, or even our journey as a scholar/researcher. What are we trying to accomplish with our research? Are we trying to understand the world? Are we trying to find the answer to life, the universe, and everything? If that is the case, our job is easy, the answer is 42. However, if we are trying to understand the processes, if we are to speak to the real world questions, as discussed by Allinia-Pisano, we need tools that enable us to observe the real world.

Do you want to go to a tapas restaurant, or an all-you-can-eat pizza place? Well, it depends on whether I’m trying to taste different foods or I’m just trying to fill myself up. Zirakzadeh makes a very bold claim when she asks why we think we can find simple causal hypotheses that fit multiple cases while we believe it is difficult to make predictive statements about a single event due to multiplicity of the actors. We can go ahead and take a superficial look at several events (or take a small bite from every Spanish delicacy) or we can practically study one single event till we understand and interpret the social processes (or eat pizza till we puke).

Ethnographic studies are not random interactions with local people. The research is based on theoretical grounds and the belief that ethnography is the best method to answer the questions. Continuing our discussion of the merits of ethnographic studies from last week, I would like to raise the issue of generalization once again. Arias tells us how to generalize, but do we want to generalize our findings? What do we want to learn?

Secondly, as a researcher, where do we need to stand vis-à-vis our participants? I claim, the answer to this question highly depends on your understanding of “science” – therefore your conceptualization of (less sarcastic air quotes) objectivity –, and ontological assumptions. Is there a knowledge out there you can observe independent of you? If there is, your immersion in the study group might eventually degrade your findings. There is no explicit discussion on the different types of researcher participation, but based on the experiences of the authors (and the beautiful show of Undercover Boss), it is possible to generate a discussion over the concept of partiality and its impacts on objectivity. If the research starts working on the “Kill Floor”, or lives with the local people, should we stop believing his/her findings? Does immersion, or being partial, increase or decrease the credibility of the research?

I believe objectivity in social sciences cannot and should not come from being disengaged. Partiality and engagement, the willingness to engage lie in the fundamentals of social science research.