I wrote the other day about the misuse of the term “ethnography” and seemed to raise the ire of a few folks. Ethnography, I was informed, is indeed the collective property of all researchers and it’s definition is subject to the chosen uses of the day. Being the anthropologist and would be semiotician that I am, I would concur insofar as meaning changes through time, is subject to cultural interpretation, etc. True enough. However, I would also argue that before meaning can change, it still needs to be grounded in something. To do otherwise is no different than me saying “Peaches are books because I said so.” I may indeed make that definition, and on a grand cosmic scale it may be true, but if I choose to read a peach today or bite into a book when I’m hungry, I’m will to bet I will be sadly disappointed. Thus so, it behooves us to think about what ethnography actually means and why it means it. “Ethnography” has come to be equated with virtually any qualitative research project.
While an ethnographic approach to research is no longer “owned” solely by of the sociologist, cultural anthropologist or sociolinguist, it doesn’t mean we should tuck our tails between our legs and simply accept any definition put before us. A more precise definition needs to be rooted in ethnography’s disciplinary home of anthropology. There lies it’s origin and therefore it has a place in the formation and definition, whether practiced by anthropologists or more general market researchers and product developers. Thus, ethnography may be defined as both a qualitative research process and method (one conducts an ethnography, not a bunch of “ethnographies,” by the by) and product (the outcome of the process is an ethnography, as in a literary genre). The aim is cultural interpretation, not simply a series of anecdotes about individual behaviors. The ethnographer goes beyond reporting events and details of experience. Specifically, he or she attempts to explain how these details represent what Geertz called “webs of meaning.” It seeks to understand and explain the cultural constructions in which we live.
This means that ethnographers generate understandings of culture through representation of what we call an emic perspective, or what might be described as the “‘insider’s point of view.” The emphasis in this representation is on allowing critical categories and meanings to emerge from the ethnographic encounter rather than imposing these from existing models. An etic perspective, by contrast, refers to a more distant, analytical orientation to experience. Both emic and etic factor into the final product and require triangulation or data and a theoretical framework. It also means taking into account more than interview data and considering the totality of the setting, the context and the interplay between people in the encounter. An ethnographic understanding is developed through close exploration of multiple sources of data. Using these data sources as a foundation, the ethnographer relies on a cultural frame of analysis. In other words, it means having an holistic approach to understanding how the human condition unfolds and an finds expression.
So yes, “ethnography” is, like all language, defined in the act of communication. It will no doubt change again before all is said and done as a broader range of disciplines adopt it as another method, another writing style and another way of understanding the world. Hopefully it won’t be watered down to the point of uselessness in the meantime. It is sometimes important to take a stand on what things mean and how they come to mean them. Not just for ourselves, but for the people who hire us.
_g_
Completely agree. I’d only add that “participatory observation” is the core of ethnographic practice. Without the act of participating in the context being observed, a great deal of the value of ethnographic practice is lost.
Ethnographic practice is different from contextual inquiry. Both have strong value, both are qualitative techniques, but they are not the same.
What you say would mean, for example, that a male would not be able to do an ethnography of women undergoing In Vitro Fertilization. How could they ‘participate’? Or does participating in the context mean hanging around where something is being practiced? In which case the term doesn’t mean much more than ‘observing’ and we’re back to the intitial, vexing, problem of what complex of techniques must be used in order for a study to be ‘ethnographic’..
True, to a point. The issue is that the argument assumes that the individual is the only actor in the situation. Ethnography does not focus on individual actors, but rather the interactions. Participation does not necessarily mean direct experience — by that logic we could argue that we can never understand a junkie unless we indulge in heroin, or playing with toys once we pass adolescence. However, we CAN engage in the system and establish the connections between the emit and the etic. That is ethnography.
Ethnography is a social process, and yes, it is observation.
Observation is not “hanging around.” It’s contextual understanding. The ethnographer is successful when (s)he combines observation, careful probing and active participation in the context around a particular situation to gain in-depth insight around the experience.
For your example of in-vitro fertilization, frankly, even another woman wouldn’t be able to participate in the procedure “along with” the participant. But the procedure itself is a small part of the overall experience. There’s a whole world of whys, hows, adaptations, values, consideration sets, attitudes, culture, and situational changes around the decision.
Why did she choose this procedure? What was the story and circumstances behind it — the memorable and less memorable?
What did having a child mean to her?
How did she adapt to the feedback (positive and negative) in her social world?
What was the experience of making the decision?
What was the experience with the key stakeholders in the decision (partner, family, friends, employer, health care provider, insurer, government, etc.)?
What were the sources of surprise or unexpected “realities” in her life? How did she cope with them?
How did she rationalize the cost components? Is “cost” being considered purely economic and measurable, or is there a degree of cost that’s perceived beyond simple dollars and cents?
Ethnography would be able to answer all those questions, plus more. “Hanging around” wouldn’t. A survey wouldn’t. A focus group wouldn’t.
As a formal matter I agree with you completly. If you could point me to any studies or reports that meet the criteria you state- in any realm- I would be deeply appreciative.
Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers by Kathleen M. DeWalt and Billie R. DeWalt
The Ethnographic Interview by James P. Spradley
Anthropologists in the Field: Cases in Participant Observation by Lynne Hume and Jane Mulcock
these are classic way old ‘what we shoulds’ and ‘how to’s’ but they don’t meet the criteria.
publication in 2010 would hardly qualify as “classic” or “way old”. However, that’s beside the point. I think what you’re looking for is more of a philosophical nature — you might try something along the lines of Robert Audi’s Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Or a book on logic problems and/or semantic paradoxes. No doubt there are people writing about, but I’m frankly not sure who is still digging away at the “Can God make a rock so big even he can’t lift it” type of puzzle because it is rather pointless. It’s an exercise most scholars have simply outgrown.
One of my favorites, though it is an article from a Chicago school sociologist I took graduate courses with, is Murray Wax’s “Tenting with Malinowski.” It is a somewhat critical, though appreciative, study of Malinowski’s diaries. For more recent views of ethnography I’d suggest Lassiter’s The Chicago Guide to Collaborative Ethnography. However, the best treatment I know of recently is Sunderland and Denny’s work on Doing Anthropology in Consumer Research. You will find a coherent critique of arguments trying to reduce ethnography to participant observation in their thinking. Ethnographic questions, regardless of the disciplinary focus, don’t reduce to participant observation. Of course, for a real classic one should look at Geertz.
Wax, Murray L. (1972), “Tenting with Malinowski,” American Sociological Review. 27(1), pp. 1-13.
Lassiter, L. . (2005), The Chicago Guide to Collaborative Ethnography, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Sunderland, Patricia L., & Rita M. Denny (2007), Doing Anthropology in Consumer Research. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc.
Geertz, C. (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books.
All types of inquiry are defined in terms of the types of questions they ask. If you aren’t asking questions about sociocultural practices you probably aren’t doing ethnography.
Agreed. I’d also point out that ethnographic questions are contextual. More akin to “what just happened” or “what do you think of what he just did,” versus “why do you buy Apple products?”
yes, I agree with that point. Insights into why usually come from observations about what is done and how it is done.
What ethnographers learn, I have found, is how a story of place unfolds in the interactions between people and environment. I do work in Russian jails and what I have learned is that the ethno method is hugely burdensome , though deeply enriching. Ethnography brings worlds to life but the burden of seeing and the burden of writing can create academic vertigo because the problems of accountability and integrity often surface, dominate and overshadow the gathering of new knowledge. The the question we must always return to when doing an ethnography and being ethnographic, and I mean here too whether you are a participant observer or an observing participant (see Anderson) is: what does the ethnographer hope to find in the field?